Agree, in that I found that the Board's minutes from last year, for the session in which it eliminated the identification process for those administrators it accords access to personally-identifiable identification of editors, were very vague. Aside from the fact that SJ Carden moved to approve that and the other changes, and that WMF lawyer Michelle Paulson briefed it and then left the room, there was no hint of the reasoning. It would also have been nice to see if any trustee had voted against the policy change, which I think was an extremely bad one, and likely to make Moiramoira-type stalking incidents more frequent in the future.
Trillium Corsage 14.03.2015, 06:35, "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com>: > Hi Bishakha, > > Pardon my forking the thread here. > > I have previously asked about having more transparency and openness for WMF > Board meetings. From my skimming of Board minutes, it's difficult to > perceive what level of diligence is being done by the Board. I realize that > corporate notetaking practices sometimes suggest summarizing discussions in > meeting minutes as "discussion about X" rather than listing detailed > questions. I would encourage more detail and transparency about Board > deliberations, along the lines of what is being done for departmental > quarterly reviews (which I greatly appreciate). <text clipped for brevity> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>