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 no
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
peo
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 Trust
+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
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:/
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/08276
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 re
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 ser
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
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
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
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
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.wikimed
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...
Lod
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 eng
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 bi
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 bu
> 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
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 prioriti
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 org
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 w
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 Boar
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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
