Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am the last one to say that multi-linguality is not important. However,
given that the affiliates board is selected by an organisation that NEEDS
to communicate in English, I disagree.

It is vital for people of the affiliates to have a reasonable understanding
of English and when they do not, this is not the place to start remedying
it.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 6 March 2016 at 08:36, attolippip  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats
> process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken
> somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it is
> far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state that
> people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But the process
> at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not provided for. It is
> great to have dedicated friends across the Movement that can translate your
> statement into German or Chinese, but as long as not all statements are
> translated into the languages used in all affiliates eligible to vote, I
> deem the process broken.
>
> Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all
> nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the affiliates
> eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by the nominees. I
> am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. And there are limits
> to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF refuses, I am going to
> use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a page
> translated into Swedish, for example :) I can manage 7 pages translated
> into as many languages as my personal budget will allow, but I shall do it
> fairly at least, so we won’t have Susanna’s statement only in English and
> Spanish, while Osmar’s is also in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends
> considerable resources (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three
> "community-elected" seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats
> than the three "community" ones.
>
> The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with that, of
> course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody understands it
> well enough to make an informed choice. But even among seven board members
> of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so they can read the
> statements only if they [the statements] are translated into Ukrainian.
> They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my
> candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members that I
> am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as wonderful
> and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where this decision
> is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading instead.
>
> And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and participation
> issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other affiliates, and
> how you make your decisions to vote for this or that possibility (in terms
> of this, I believe that there are seven possibilities presented at the
> moment, by us, as nominees. So you can accept or decline what we seven
> offer). You (actually) do not know us and if we are going to be great or
> poor as Board members of WMF, and if we are the right-for-the-moment
> choice, but you are going to choose. Are you really going to choose just
> based on your personal contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators are
> chosen more objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them
> first personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and
> after… Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the
> candidates? And the members of your affiliate? If not, please consider this
> option. We do have a sad example of an appointed Board member being not
> accepted by us, as the Community.
>
> I am sorry for the long letter. I do believe I have a right to request (and
> suggest) this. I was a part of a team that made sure that the Ukrainian
> community REALLY knows about the elections so the eligible users on UKWP
> have voted [6] [7] And we really worked to make that happen. As you can
> see, Board elections may be of great importance to the whole community. So
> (at least) informing your own members is important, I believe.
>
> Best regards,
>
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> [1] There is a question about the ‘turnout in this selection process’
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions#Turnout_in_this_selection_process
> so you’d think that people care. But do they? Really?
> [2] I think that contacting each affiliate eligible to vote and asking them
> if they need help to translate the statements and if yes, what languages
> are required by memberships/affiliates’ leadership to read the statements.
> By doing this we also make sure that they are aware of the upcoming
> elections 

[Wikimedia-l] Access and Participation in the ASBS

[attolippip]

Dear all,

As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats
process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken
somewhere [1]. The democracy principles even in my country, though it is
far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state that
people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But the process
at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not provided for. It is
great to have dedicated friends across the Movement that can translate your
statement into German or Chinese, but as long as not all statements are
translated into the languages used in all affiliates eligible to vote, I
deem the process broken.

Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all
nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the affiliates
eligible to vote [2] [3] and all languages used already by the nominees. I
am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. And there are limits
to what volunteers can do [4] or how fast. If WMF refuses, I am going to
use my own money [5], it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a page
translated into Swedish, for example :) I can manage 7 pages translated
into as many languages as my personal budget will allow, but I shall do it
fairly at least, so we won’t have Susanna’s statement only in English and
Spanish, while Osmar’s is also in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends
considerable resources (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three
"community-elected" seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats
than the three "community" ones.

The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with that, of
course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody understands it
well enough to make an informed choice. But even among seven board members
of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so they can read the
statements only if they [the statements] are translated into Ukrainian.
They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my
candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members that I
am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as wonderful
and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where this decision
is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading instead.

And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and participation
issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other affiliates, and
how you make your decisions to vote for this or that possibility (in terms
of this, I believe that there are seven possibilities presented at the
moment, by us, as nominees. So you can accept or decline what we seven
offer). You (actually) do not know us and if we are going to be great or
poor as Board members of WMF, and if we are the right-for-the-moment
choice, but you are going to choose. Are you really going to choose just
based on your personal contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators are
chosen more objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them
first personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and
after… Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the
candidates? And the members of your affiliate? If not, please consider this
option. We do have a sad example of an appointed Board member being not
accepted by us, as the Community.

I am sorry for the long letter. I do believe I have a right to request (and
suggest) this. I was a part of a team that made sure that the Ukrainian
community REALLY knows about the elections so the eligible users on UKWP
have voted [6] [7] And we really worked to make that happen. As you can
see, Board elections may be of great importance to the whole community. So
(at least) informing your own members is important, I believe.

Best regards,

antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv

Wikimedia Ukraine

[1] There is a question about the ‘turnout in this selection process’
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions#Turnout_in_this_selection_process
so you’d think that people care. But do they? Really?
[2] I think that contacting each affiliate eligible to vote and asking them
if they need help to translate the statements and if yes, what languages
are required by memberships/affiliates’ leadership to read the statements.
By doing this we also make sure that they are aware of the upcoming
elections and are engaged

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters

[4] Because they just may be not willing to do it

[5] well, I was going to translate into Ukrainian all statement anyway,
translating is the best way to read the statement thoughtfully :)
[6] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-May/077966.html
[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Stats
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Anthony Cole]

Recordings of board meetings will be of value to future historians.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> +1
>
> Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release
> the recordings publicly.
>
> We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a
> massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please,
> start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and
> their (understandably fallible) memories.
>
> And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of those
> video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until
> after some more pressing things have been sorted out.
>
> I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective of
> whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog  wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.
> > >
> > > I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
> > >
> > > And I guess this one too
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
> > >
> > > I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
> > > videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
> > > wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
> > > approved by all.
> > >
> > > At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings
> that
> > > are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like
> the
> > > above happen?  So not open, but recorded?
> > >
> > > What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
> > differences
> > > in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff
> > to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what
> > was meant rather than what was actually said.
> >
> > And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the
> > road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Pete Forsyth]

+1

Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release
the recordings publicly.

We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a
massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please,
start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and
their (understandably fallible) memories.

And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of those
video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until
after some more pressing things have been sorted out.

I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective of
whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog  wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.
> >
> > I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
> >
> > And I guess this one too
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
> >
> > I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
> > videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
> > wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
> > approved by all.
> >
> > At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings that
> > are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the
> > above happen?  So not open, but recorded?
> >
> > What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
> differences
> > in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.
>
> I agree.
>
> Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff
> to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what
> was meant rather than what was actually said.
>
> And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the
> road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog  wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.
>
> I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
>
> And I guess this one too
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
>
> I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
> videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
> wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
> approved by all.
>
> At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings that
> are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the
> above happen?  So not open, but recorded?
>
> What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable differences
> in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.

I agree.

Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff
to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what
was meant rather than what was actually said.

And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the
road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[jytdog]

Hi

This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.

I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html

And I guess this one too
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html

I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
approved by all.

At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings that
are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like the
above happen?  So not open, but recorded?

What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable differences
in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[James Alexander]

Hey Lodewijk,

I'm definetly talking about the legal concept of a union yeah (which
triggers a lot of legal protections which, at least in the US, are somewhat
assumed when people talk about organizing internally). I do think there are
other options (both formal and informal) which is what I was referring to
in the "There are other options I imagine" bit. As one example the staff
asked for at least one non c-level staff member, chosen by the staff, to be
on the ED search team and the board has suggested that would be accepted
(Obviously it isn't done yet but it was acknowledged as a good idea in an
all staff email). I think that's the first example of a more formal
'representation' for non c-level staff that I've seen in the almost 6 years
I've been in WMF. Informally, of course, staff have been organizing over
the past couple months at different levels trying to help us through
difficult times.

[I should point out that I actually think our c-levels have been, and are,
traditionally very good at representing the needs of the staff as a whole
however having a lower level staff member representative, especially in
times like this, is still very useful both for appearances/trust and for a
different perspective then someone who would be a direct report]

James

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> just to understand correctly: are you talking only about the legal concept
> of a 'union' or also about all informal structures where the wmf staff
> could somehow influence how things go? I mean for example, I could imagine
> that in an organisation with more than 100 people, a representation of
> sorts outside the usual hierarchy might be imaginable and potentially
> beneficial. That representation could possibly be to the board, to the
> C-team or otherwise. Or are such structures already in existance (have been
> in existance)?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:51 PM, James Alexander 
> wrote:
>
> > A traditional union is also difficult, honestly, because of the nature of
> > the WMF as an incredibly global organization. We are a huge mix of staff
> in
> > SF from the US, staff in SF on Visas (I don't know if this matters), Full
> > Time Equivalent contractors outside the US (and numerous different ways
> to
> > do that os that it's better for the staff member such as being a 'vender'
> > of a sole company etc), temporary contractors and more. I am not perfect
> at
> > Labour law but I'm fairly certainly not all of those can actually
> unionize
> > together officially and so no matter what we do a huge portion of the
> force
> > would be outside of a union and not get the legal protections that
> > provides. There are other options I imagine, and people are looking into
> > it, but sadly unionization laws weren't really written with the idea of
> us
> > in mind.
> >
> > Now that said I'm not 100% sure a union would really be the most
> beneficial
> > thing for the org. I'm just not sure they would be able to fix many of
> our
> > issues while at the same time probably adding some of their own. They can
> > be hugely beneficial when used in the right place but I'm not sure this
> is
> > one of those (they also take a long time to set up and so would not
> really
> > help for the specific, current, issues). Of course as a manager I don't
> > have a vote (and won't be protected) anyway if we go down that route so
> my
> > opinion is mostly academic.
> >
> > James
> > User:Jamesofur
> > [Manager, Trust & Safety, WMF]
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of
> > > troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > > > Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation,
> > > > > they are not even represented.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then they should unionise?
> > > >
> > > > Gordo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Gergő Tisza]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:54 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a really

amateur mistake.


Not really if the roof was radioactive, and on fire.

It is entirely a matter of priorities - is it more urgent to fix a
situation that was causing serious unrest amongst staff, and was escalating
quickly, or to compose a nice transition plan? You might disagree with the
board's answer to that question, but there are more honest ways of
criticizing it than attacking them for not doing everything at the same
time.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Lodewijk]

Hi James,

just to understand correctly: are you talking only about the legal concept
of a 'union' or also about all informal structures where the wmf staff
could somehow influence how things go? I mean for example, I could imagine
that in an organisation with more than 100 people, a representation of
sorts outside the usual hierarchy might be imaginable and potentially
beneficial. That representation could possibly be to the board, to the
C-team or otherwise. Or are such structures already in existance (have been
in existance)?

Lodewijk

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:51 PM, James Alexander  wrote:

> A traditional union is also difficult, honestly, because of the nature of
> the WMF as an incredibly global organization. We are a huge mix of staff in
> SF from the US, staff in SF on Visas (I don't know if this matters), Full
> Time Equivalent contractors outside the US (and numerous different ways to
> do that os that it's better for the staff member such as being a 'vender'
> of a sole company etc), temporary contractors and more. I am not perfect at
> Labour law but I'm fairly certainly not all of those can actually unionize
> together officially and so no matter what we do a huge portion of the force
> would be outside of a union and not get the legal protections that
> provides. There are other options I imagine, and people are looking into
> it, but sadly unionization laws weren't really written with the idea of us
> in mind.
>
> Now that said I'm not 100% sure a union would really be the most beneficial
> thing for the org. I'm just not sure they would be able to fix many of our
> issues while at the same time probably adding some of their own. They can
> be hugely beneficial when used in the right place but I'm not sure this is
> one of those (they also take a long time to set up and so would not really
> help for the specific, current, issues). Of course as a manager I don't
> have a vote (and won't be protected) anyway if we go down that route so my
> opinion is mostly academic.
>
> James
> User:Jamesofur
> [Manager, Trust & Safety, WMF]
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of
> > troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly  wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > > Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia
> > Foundation,
> > > > they are not even represented.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then they should unionise?
> > >
> > > Gordo
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[James Alexander]

A traditional union is also difficult, honestly, because of the nature of
the WMF as an incredibly global organization. We are a huge mix of staff in
SF from the US, staff in SF on Visas (I don't know if this matters), Full
Time Equivalent contractors outside the US (and numerous different ways to
do that os that it's better for the staff member such as being a 'vender'
of a sole company etc), temporary contractors and more. I am not perfect at
Labour law but I'm fairly certainly not all of those can actually unionize
together officially and so no matter what we do a huge portion of the force
would be outside of a union and not get the legal protections that
provides. There are other options I imagine, and people are looking into
it, but sadly unionization laws weren't really written with the idea of us
in mind.

Now that said I'm not 100% sure a union would really be the most beneficial
thing for the org. I'm just not sure they would be able to fix many of our
issues while at the same time probably adding some of their own. They can
be hugely beneficial when used in the right place but I'm not sure this is
one of those (they also take a long time to set up and so would not really
help for the specific, current, issues). Of course as a manager I don't
have a vote (and won't be protected) anyway if we go down that route so my
opinion is mostly academic.

James
User:Jamesofur
[Manager, Trust & Safety, WMF]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of
> troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly  wrote:
>
> > On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia
> Foundation,
> > > they are not even represented.
> >
> >
> > Then they should unionise?
> >
> > Gordo
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Michael Peel]

They were doing this regularly until January:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_meetings/2016-01-30
and see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_meetings
I suspect this dropped a bit in priority since then, for obvious reasons, but 
hopefully only temporarily.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 5 Mar 2016, at 17:11, Lodewijk  wrote:
> 
> Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the
> meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings
> (the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would
> indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to
> discuss...
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
>> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
>> by waving a wand and have it be so.
>> 
>> I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
>> different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
>> universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
>> did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
>> Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
>> being content-free.
>> 
>> And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
>> side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
>> shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
>> bodies ;-)
>> 
>> So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
>> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
>> after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
>> meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
>> those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
>> 
>> Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
>> before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
>> 
>> Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
>> and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
>> 
>> Ariel
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
>> board
>>> meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
>>> decided elsewhere.
>>> 
>>> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
>> wheeling
>>> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
>> Board
>>> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
>>> solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
>>> from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
>>> WMF in being transparent?
>>> 
>>> Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
>>> could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
>>> minutes are positively Wildean.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>> On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W  wrote:
>>> 
 Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
 a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
That would not be a bad idea in and of itself. However, the kind of
troubles are not necessarily the kind where a Union has its experience.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 5 March 2016 at 20:45, Gordon Joly  wrote:

> On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation,
> > they are not even represented.
>
>
> Then they should unionise?
>
> Gordo
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Gordon Joly]

On 05/03/16 16:49, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation,
> they are not even represented. 


Then they should unionise?

Gordo


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Lodewijk]

Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the
meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings
(the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would
indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to
discuss...

Lodewijk

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
> by waving a wand and have it be so.
>
> I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
> different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
> universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
> did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
> Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
> being content-free.
>
> And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
> side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
> shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
> bodies ;-)
>
> So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
> after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
> meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
> those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
>
> Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
> before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
>
> Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
> and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
>
> Ariel
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
>
> > This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
> board
> > meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
> > decided elsewhere.
> >
> > Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
> wheeling
> > a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
> Board
> > of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> > solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> > from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> > WMF in being transparent?
> >
> > Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
> > could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
> > minutes are positively Wildean.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
> > > a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[James Heilman]

We have three C levels who have been around for some time, Lisa, Katherine,
and Geoff. I imagine that either one of them will step up and take on the
role or a sharing agreement between a few of them will be suggested. I see
either of those options as perfectly reasonable.

We have had a recent engagement survey which confirmed strong support from
staff generally for these three. And I personally highly respect each of
their abilities and have confidence that each of them will be able to bring
greater stability to the WMF and the movement as a whole.

With respect to the "board removing the roof" analogy both the "tenants" ie
staff as well as a number of those in the community generally were asking
for said roof to be removed. Also the roof resigned with the board simply
accepting her resignation.

The WMF is a steward of movement resources. Agree that clarifying this
relationship can be done once an interim ED structure is in place. Do not
have concerns with continued community discussion about the future though
as these will likely take some months.

P.S. Have not specifically included the other C levels as they have been in
their current positions for a shorter period of time.
James

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:54 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Brion Vibber wrote:
> >There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and
> >regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.
>
> After months of complaints from tenants and from a few neighbors, the
> landlord of a large building decides to replace the roof of the building.
> In the process of removing the old roof, the landlord realizes that it's a
> really big job and that he won't be able to properly replace the roof
> quickly. Scrambling, he then asks a few of the building tenants to come up
> with a plan for an interim roof, because whoa, an open roof leaves you
> susceptible to rain and birds and other problematic elements. And this is
> a large and expensive building that lots of people rely on, so an interim
> roof is definitely needed pretty soon.
>
> Sure, we can commend the landlord for recognizing that the old roof needed
> to be replaced. And we can commend him for realizing that he alone can't
> speedily fix the roof himself; he needs additional help to finish this big
> job. But that doesn't absolve the landlord of negligence. Removing a roof
> has very predictable consequences that any landlord should be able to
> foresee and account for. Removing a roof without also having a plan for an
> interim roof is a really amateur mistake. Perhaps landlords of smaller
> buildings could get away with this kind of mistake, but it's unacceptable
> for a landlord of a large building to be turning to the tenants to ask
> them to fix the problem. Yes, the tenants were the ones complaining for a
> new roof, but it's the landlord's responsibility to have the roof replaced
> in a professional and orderly way.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is one big hole in this comparison. We are a movement, the Foundation
is the material part of it. It is responsible for all kinds of everything
but we, as a community do not pay for a roof over our head.

We are represented on the WMF board. That is it.

Arguably, the employees have a bigger stake in the Wikimedia Foundation,
they are not even represented. This whole fracas is largely about trust and
relations between the employees and the ED. Other shit happened as well and
as has been argued over and over again, much of that, particularly the
"search" issue  is not al all the issue.

Several people are so absorbed in their ideas of what the WMF should be
that they lose sight of what we are about. We are not about the WMF. We are
the Wikimedia Movement. The proposal is imho brilliant in that it puts
trust in the employees. It recognises their ability to keep the ship
afloat. When the "C-levels" (whatever that means) are indeed capable to do
good we should rejoice and let them get on with it.

Going back to the analogy, when they keep the ship afloat and the employees
are pumping, the water accumulated will get out of the ship. The weather
forecast is positive, so the holes in the roof can be fixed for now, the
engine can get emergency repairs and the ship can sail on towards its
destination and if need be it may take a dry dock to fix things properly.

The best thing we can do is do as a movement is do what we are about. Build
content, maintain relations in our community and not throw mines overboard
in front of the foundation.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 March 2016 at 16:54, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Brion Vibber wrote:
> >There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and
> >regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.
>
> After months of complaints from tenants and from a few neighbors, the
> landlord of a large building decides to replace the roof of the building.
> In the process of removing the old roof, the landlord realizes that it's a
> really big job and that he won't be able to properly replace the roof
> quickly. Scrambling, he then asks a few of the building tenants to come up
> with a plan for an interim roof, because whoa, an open roof leaves you
> susceptible to rain and birds and other problematic elements. And this is
> a large and expensive building that lots of people rely on, so an interim
> roof is definitely needed pretty soon.
>
> Sure, we can commend the landlord for recognizing that the old roof needed
> to be replaced. And we can commend him for realizing that he alone can't
> speedily fix the roof himself; he needs additional help to finish this big
> job. But that doesn't absolve the landlord of negligence. Removing a roof
> has very predictable consequences that any landlord should be able to
> foresee and account for. Removing a roof without also having a plan for an
> interim roof is a really amateur mistake. Perhaps landlords of smaller
> buildings could get away with this kind of mistake, but it's unacceptable
> for a landlord of a large building to be turning to the tenants to ask
> them to fix the problem. Yes, the tenants were the ones complaining for a
> new roof, but it's the landlord's responsibility to have the roof replaced
> in a professional and orderly way.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[MZMcBride]

Brion Vibber wrote:
>There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and
>regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.

After months of complaints from tenants and from a few neighbors, the
landlord of a large building decides to replace the roof of the building.
In the process of removing the old roof, the landlord realizes that it's a
really big job and that he won't be able to properly replace the roof
quickly. Scrambling, he then asks a few of the building tenants to come up
with a plan for an interim roof, because whoa, an open roof leaves you
susceptible to rain and birds and other problematic elements. And this is
a large and expensive building that lots of people rely on, so an interim
roof is definitely needed pretty soon.

Sure, we can commend the landlord for recognizing that the old roof needed
to be replaced. And we can commend him for realizing that he alone can't
speedily fix the roof himself; he needs additional help to finish this big
job. But that doesn't absolve the landlord of negligence. Removing a roof
has very predictable consequences that any landlord should be able to
foresee and account for. Removing a roof without also having a plan for an
interim roof is a really amateur mistake. Perhaps landlords of smaller
buildings could get away with this kind of mistake, but it's unacceptable
for a landlord of a large building to be turning to the tenants to ask
them to fix the problem. Yes, the tenants were the ones complaining for a
new roof, but it's the landlord's responsibility to have the roof replaced
in a professional and orderly way.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[James Salsman]

> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda
> published within 5 days after any meeting

"I would support as best practice the public posting of agendas for
routine board meetings. I would support that minutes be posted
promptly - but before the next meetings agenda is finalized is not
really practical because we normally vote to approve the previous
meetings minutes at the next meeting - every board I have been on does
this. I would not support that unagendized items be deferred until the
next meeting - we are working board and we have long board meetings
and such a delay would not be helpful in any way."
-- Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Anders Wennersten]

I second Delphines praise.

I am also very glad to see that this being the fourth major decision 
taken by the Board this year (outing of James was done last year...) , 
and that they all have been very good and balanced. And even if valid 
wishes for quicker decisions is raised, I myself prioritize quality in 
the decisions before haste.


Anders



Den 2016-03-05 kl. 10:54, skrev Delphine Ménard:

Thank you Alice. I find this move pretty bold and welcome it, it renew
with an old tradition ;)

Also many thnaks for sharing with us these kind of developments.

Cheers,

Delphine

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Alice Wiegand  wrote:

Hi all,
short update, as announced by Patricio:

Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment
and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the
Board  is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.

If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.

We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the
day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our
culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best
for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a
decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in
this situation.

Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a
solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that
decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the
box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The
C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present
their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize
until the end of next week.

Alice.

--
Alice Wiegand
Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation


--
Alice Wiegand
Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Delphine Ménard]

Thank you Alice. I find this move pretty bold and welcome it, it renew
with an old tradition ;)

Also many thnaks for sharing with us these kind of developments.

Cheers,

Delphine

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Alice Wiegand  wrote:
> Hi all,
> short update, as announced by Patricio:
>
> Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment
> and to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the
> Board  is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
>
> If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
>
> We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the
> day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our
> culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best
> for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a
> decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in
> this situation.
>
> Therefor the board empowers the entire C-level-team to come up with a
> solution for the interim question. We leave it up to them how that
> decisions looks like. We trust them to think traditional or outside of the
> box as it fits to our organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The
> C-level-team needs some time to deliberate and decide. They will present
> their result to the board which has to vote on it. We plan to finalize
> until the end of next week.
>
> Alice.
>
> --
> Alice Wiegand
> Board of Trustees
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> --
> Alice Wiegand
> Board of Trustees
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
by waving a wand and have it be so.

I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
being content-free.

And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
bodies ;-)

So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.

Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.

Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.

Ariel

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board
> meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
> decided elsewhere.
>
> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> WMF in being transparent?
>
> Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
> could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
> minutes are positively Wildean.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
> > a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Fæ]

On 5 March 2016 at 08:28, Chris Sherlock  wrote:
>> In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
>>
>> * Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director;
>
> Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather 
> abrogating the responsibility of the Board.

I'm not a fan of this move, strategically speaking, as the trustees
have painted themselves into a corner if they don't like what their
C-levels suggest and they, say, then want to appoint someone with
excellent experience in transforming organizations (or for that
matter, boards of trustees) from outside as an interim. However
appointing an interim CEO that your internal employees like, is not
the same thing as appointing a CEO.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Chris Sherlock]

Sent from my iPhone
> On 5 Mar 2016, at 1:14 PM, Alice Wiegand  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> short update, as announced by Patricio:
> 
> Our organization needs stability, it needs a chance to rest for a moment and 
> to move on with the things that matter at the same time. That’s why the Board 
>  is aiming for a quick decision about the interim ED.
> 
> If you want to make a difference you need to act differently.
> 
> We know that our C-level team is doing a great job in managing the 
> day-to-day-operations and they all have a deep understandning of our
> culture, challenges and needs. Who, if not them, knows better what is best 
> for the organization in this moment. The Board is not best suited to make a 
> decision about the interim which can quickly be established and accepted in
> this situation.

You might want to rewrite the Board manual then because it current reads, under 
the section The Role of the Board, Effective Board Oversight:

> In it's decision making capacity, the Board should:
> 
> * Select, evaluate and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director; 

Whilst I'm sure that C-level managers are up to the task, that's rather 
abrogating the responsibility of the Board. 

I'm wondering how long till other responsibilities of the Board will be moved 
to C level managers.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[geni]

On 5 March 2016 at 03:21, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> There's less weakness in admitting a failure honestly, retreating and
> regrouping, than in powering through when knowing oneself unprepared.


Fallacy of the excluded middle.

In any case that doesn't change the fundamental problem. The only
formal mechanism the wider community of editors has to control the
activities of the foundation is via the nominal community seats on the
board. Things in that respect are pretty bad. We've lost our
apparently most effective member and the replacement is currently
doing pet rock impressions.

In more recent times the only practical level of control the board has
exercised is appointing the ED. If they are given that up the wider
community no longer has any formal mechanisms of control left.

While that may not be the intent of the WMF employees it is where we are.

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,