On 13 March 2015 at 19:04, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In general I think highly of Michelle, but this statement fits a
> long-running pattern I percieve in WMF governance of the board being
> deferential to the ED and staff. This goes back to Sue's tenure and
> possibly longer. I feel that the Board should respectfully ask tough
> questions about staff recommendations. Had the board done so, we might all
> have been saved from the MediaViewer, VisualEditor, and other product
> dramas because the Board would have been vigilant about project selection
> and quality control. WMF needs an activist board. All of the guidance that
> I read about boards in general says that good boards do due diligance, and
> I would encourage the WMF board to be proactive and ask tough questions.
> This can be done while maintaining a positive and respectful atmosphere.

I think you're completely incorrect here. Professional charities
desperately need the separation, and being on the board of a
professional-level nonprofit board is enough work. This sort of
detailed overview of every initiative is precisely what a board needs
to evolve the charity to *get away from*.

- d.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to