> Please show me, in amongst all the official documents released in relation to
> the strategy, where it recommends that WMF employees should have
> representation on the WMF Board of Trustees.
I feel it would be best if I stepped away for some days at least, to
let the North American
Ah, I think it becomes clearer now. This is your preferred version, not
anything official, based on your interpretations.
Please show me, in amongst all the official documents released in relation
to the strategy, where it recommends that WMF employees should have
representation on the WMF Board
Here is the predicted org chart with Risker's suggestions:
https://i.ibb.co/fpXyx3r/WMF-orgchart-2.png
-Will
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:24 PM Bill Takatoshi wrote:
>
> Hi Anne,
>
> Thank you for both of your excellent questions.
>
> 1) In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be
Hi Anne,
Thank you for both of your excellent questions.
1) In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented
in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is
off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as
healthcare untethered from
Two questions, Bill.
1) Labour representation? Huh?
2) Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I meanall of this is
hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre
of every aspect of the community.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi wrote:
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look
like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new
email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from
there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems
sensible given the level of
Since candidates are supposed to begin answering on July 7th, I would like
to nudge the conversation towards a poll of candidates and interested
community members, on an actionable proposal to use the longer list of
questions:
As a candidate, I am of course not the one who decides what questions
get asked, but I will share my opinion on some of your points:
On dom, 2021-07-04 at 12:50 +0100, Nosebagbear wrote:
> First and foremost, is that of the questions that received
> significant Community endorsement, only one was
Hoi,
Fae a few points..First board members are volunteers like you and all the
things that are asked of a candidate represents a significant amount of
time. In addition there are timelines and the notion of a process to
improve questions is not really feasible. Also I said it before, many of
the
Hoi, some reflections:
You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the
Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be
chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for
having only eleven questions as given to us candidates
Really, there shouldn't be any "selection". All of the community questions
should be put over, and the candidates then may choose to answer any or all
of them. If a candidate does not answer a question, people can then take
from that what they will.
This is a community selection process. There is
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 8:18 AM Fæ wrote:
>
> "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for
> purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?"
> - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific
> projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an
I'm surprised at how odd the "selected questions" read,[1] which will
probably result in off-topic or wooly answers by the candidates unless
they have "abstracts" somewhere to unpack the coded language.
"What is your opinion on the claim of autonomy by Wikipedia
communities and the attempts of
13 matches
Mail list logo
