Founder of the Wikimedia Foundation = One who founded/established the foundation? Sorry; I didn't get your question.
Regards, Jee On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the assurance that the community "directly and indirectly > influences 100% of the board". > > Could someone point me to where this happened for the founder of the > Wikimedia Foundation? > > Thanks again, > Fae > > On 21 January 2014 17:28, Jan-Bart de Vreede <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hey > > > > I am sure it is technically feasible, its just not realistic from a > hiring perspective. I cannot tell a potential candidate that process > includes a public vetting process, this is something that is just not going > to happen. We are hiring an ED for the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Board > of Trustees of that Foundation is simply the body that is responsible for > the final decision on this. > > > > I am not going to debate the different kinds of movement representation > in the board, but I would argue that the community directly and indirectly > influences 100% of the board, as appointed members are appointed by > (s)elected members and the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation. > > > > Jan-Bart > > > > > > > > On 21 Jan 2014, at 15:57, MZMcBride <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Thanks for getting back to me. > >> > >> Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote: > >>> There is no "community consultation" period in the selection proces. > It's > >>> simply not feasible or desirable to have someone have a public > "vetting" > >>> phase. > >> > >> I'm not sure I understand how it would be infeasible. It's 2014, not > 1814. > >> I think we've figured out how to solicit feedback in a timely manner. > >> > >> It seems less desirable to me to reduce the Wikimedia community to > waiting > >> for the white smoke. > >> > >> The new Executive Director will be publicly vetted, to be sure, it just > >> sounds as though it'll happen after or he or she has been firmly > appointed > >> by the Board. It would be dishonest to suggest that there's no merit to > >> this approach, but I do wonder if it's in line with Wikimedia's values. > >> > >>> The good news is that you elected representatives on the board who > >>> have a strong voice in the selection process and final approval. > >> > >> I'm not quite sure who "you" is, but only three of ten Board seats are > >> directly elected. I suppose that's a strong voice? > >> > >> MZMcBride > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > [email protected] http://j.mp/faewm > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
