I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary actually took minutes... That would usually be delegated... On Nov 6, 2012 12:02 AM, "Risker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It would strike me that one of the "urgencies" that might be involved is > the fact that this resolution was passed so that the Board member who had > previously been the secretary could participate as an individual board > member, and the appointed secretary could take the minutes. It's extremely > rare for a staffed charity/non-profit to have sitting trustees acting as > secretary or treasurer, and none of the discussion here has indicated any > concern about this decision; this was essentially housekeeping. Therefore, > the only thing I can take from this is that it is a process issue, and that > some members of the community wish to know in advance and in detail what > the board will be discussing. I can understand that; at the same time, I > think that attempting to micro-manage the board over housekeeping items is > not terribly helpful. Now, if the Board had been deciding on its > composition (which as best I can tell was never publicly discussed the last > time it was changed), I think that would certainly benefit from community > input. > > Risker > > > On 5 November 2012 18:25, Lodewijk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > (just for the record: in case someone does have a valid reason, I'm still > > very open to hearing good reasons why the board chose the procedure they > > chose (behind closed doors), and whether there was any urgency to the > > changes proposed. I somehow missed that in the replies but may have > missed > > it. Knowing about such reasons might be helpful in the light of proposing > > changes to procedures. > > > > Lodewijk) > > > > 2012/11/2 Lodewijk <[email protected]> > > > > > Hi Bishakha, > > > > > > 2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta <[email protected]> > > > > > >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lodewijk <[email protected] > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > >> > Dear Bishakha, > > >> > > > >> > could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a secretive > > >> > amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed > amendments > > >> with > > >> > the community and asking their input on it? Especially where it > > concerns > > >> > such non-trivial changes. > > >> > > > >> Ok, now that the document showing old and new has finally been > > uploaded, I > > >> will try to answer your question. > > >> > > >> The legal team proposed that we amend the bylaws, primarily to ensure > > >> compliance with Florida non-profit laws. > > >> > > >> Since most of the changes are legal in nature, they were not referred > to > > >> the community for prior input. > > >> > > >> I understand how this action can be seen as secretive or opaque, even > > >> though it may not have been intended as such. > > >> > > >> Is it also possible to see this action as reasonable, given the nature > > of > > >> most of the changes? > > >> > > > > > > I don't see how this validates the fact that you did not consult the > > > community on these changes. If the changes are fairly trivial and > > > legalistic, then the community will likely have little objection. But > as > > > you noted, there was at least one significant change (I haven't been > able > > > to check myself) and I'm having a hard time understanding why you (the > > > board) would /not/ want the input of the community on such decisions. > > > > > > If people talk rubbish, it is easy to ignore. But maybe they have a > very > > > good point that you want to take into account. If they come up with an > > > argument that changes your mind - wouldn't that mean that the goal has > > been > > > accomplished? > > > > > > Especially with the second most important governing document of the > > > Wikimedia Foundation (after the Articles of Incorporation) I don't > > > understand why changing it is not considered to be relevant to the > > > community. Maybe this specific change was a good one (I'm not sure yet > I > > > agree, until I heard the explanation of the why) but maybe next time > the > > > changes are more drastic and infringing. I find it silly that we do > > require > > > chapters to let their bylaws approved by the Affiliations Committee > > > (although enforcement of that could be improved), and make them public > > > before doing so - but that the Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't have to > > follow > > > the same standards. > > > > > > But let me make this constructive: I will set up a page on meta (I'll > > send > > > a separate email about that) where the community can discuss measures > to > > > make the Wikimedia Foundation more democratic. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Lodewijk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
