I think that your 'lessons' are quite premature. We still don't know the
what, the why and the how. We don't know the context of everything that
happened. It may very well be that the process as it is, worked perfectly.
It may also be that it was disastrous.

transparency and good communication don't necessarily go hand in hand with
'quick', as was pointed out by some.

Some other points that you touch, may very well be good material for
discussion, but not necessarily relevant to this specific event. The
transparency of board deliberations and the role of board members in the
board (not limited to jimmy) is /always/ good to reconsider, and keep an
open mind for. A more fundamental reconsideration may be the (formal)
membership of the Wikimedia Foundation. But, while this would have
influenced the current situation, it is not necessarily related. They often
say that incidents make bad policy.

At the same time, please keep in mind that Cascadia Wikimedians are not
quite comparable with the Wikimedia Foundation. The budget if three (if not
more) orders of magnitude higher, and the involvement of staff this large
also makes a different organisational structure.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Depending on what all we learn as this goes forward, some action items that
> may emerge from this situation as it seems to be evolving so far:
>
> (1) the board may need to work on its communication strategies
> (2) this may be an opportunity for another discussion about Board
> composition and structure, including the role of Jimmy
> (3) this situation may inform a review of the bylaws concerning how board
> members are appointed and removed, particularly community-elected members
> (4) this situation is an opportunity for a significant increase in the
> transparency of WMF Board activities. I still am of the view that far more
> of what happens at the WMF Board should be public and transparent. This
> includes how they handle allegations against one of their own. If
> government entities like city councils and national legislatures can do
> this, I think that the WMF Board should hold itself to at least that level
> of transparency. Yes these are uncomfortable discussions to have in public,
> but as we can see from how this situation is developing, handling them in
> private has its own downsides. I don't know how other affiliates work, but
> here in Cascadia Wikimedians there is very little that the Board does that
> can't be made public. I would hope that the WMF Board would hold itself to
> similarly high expectations for openness and transparency, even when it's
> uncomfortable. The controversial nature of information, by itself, is not a
> sufficient reason for keeping information private. So I hope that the WMF
> Board will consider new levels of openness about its deliberations.
> Something that I suggested awhile ago was live broadcasts of Board meetings
> (with a limited exception for executive sessions) and I still think that
> level of openness is appropriate for the Board of an open-source
> organization.
>
> It will be interesting to see what more we learn as this situation evolves.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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