Quick follow-up question and comment -

Is there any reason for affiliates to feel they should now at least plan
for possible caps on other areas? Does that absolutely seem unlikely
(granted anything is possible) or not really something the board can
comment on more firmly - which I suspect will just keep people concerned
about this cap indicating a new trend while new strategic planning under
the new ED begins (er..continues..).

I am happy to hear that there is agreement that things should be done
better next time. My one comment on the notes is that I hope they are more
immediately two-way in nature. While the liaisons and committees are very
helpful in many circumstances - the nature of things sometimes causes
multiple week gaps between individual notes. That is just my personal
reaction.

Also - and sorry if I just overlooked this elsewhere - will the board be
discussing or presenting more on this topic at the April conference in
Berlin?

-greg


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:19 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg!
>
> A few fast notes before I go to bed :)
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Gregory Varnum
> <gregory.var...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Phoebe,
> >
> > I appreciate you sharing this information - it fills in a few gaps.  I am
> > still concerned that there was not more opportunity for input prior to
> the
> > decision - and that everyone was clearly not on the same page about what
> > was going to be discussed exactly.
> >
>
> I take your point about wanting more formal committee consultation, for
> sure, and in hindsight I agree we should have done things differently. (I
> think writing comments would probably work better logistically than skyping
> folks in, just for logistical and stylistic reasons, but it's an
> interesting thought -- perhaps worth a try).
>
>
> > Regarding your earlier comments on the funding. I recognize that there
> are
> > options beyond FDC - however it seems to send mixed messages. Also, did
> the
> > board discuss capping the other WMF funding options?
>
>
> Nope.
>
>
> > I still think there is
> > confusion over the incorporated user group concerns - but I will keep
> that
> > conversation on Meta.
>
>
> I just posted a reply on meta about this, that hopefully will clear up some
> concerns. Short answer: if you need to incorporate in your country for
> whatever reason, go ahead and incorporate. You just don't *have* to for
> wikimedia recognition.
>
>
> > Finally, can you speak to any changes the board may
> > be making in future processes and if the community or at least committees
> > will have more input on these types of decisions?
>
>
> Hmm. I know there is a desire to talk about movement roles strategy in
> general among several trustees, so we may well talk about related issues,
> but I don't know if that will be on a meeting agenda in the near future,
> and we don't have any decisions planned that I know of (though of course
> issues may be raised that aren't on the agenda now). The April meeting will
> hopefully mostly be adjusting/approving the annual plan and working on the
> shift to a new executive director, especially if they are hired and
> available by then.
>
> -- Phoebe
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to