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
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