Chris, I agree the points you raise wouldn't matter to a governance review. The board's handling of James's removal and their attitude toward transparency (and the preponderance of Silicon Valley people) are matters fou us to judge. I'd like an expert to look over the board's understanding of and practice around financial conflict of interest, and make recommendations if those don't presently match best practice.
I am concerned that Denny may not have been recusing from discussions and decisions affecting Google. This strikes me as exceptional, and that the board doesn't find it so troubles me, and hints that you may all have something to gain from independent advice. On 11 Jan 2016 4:49 am, "Chris Keating" <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was chair of Wikimedia UK at the time of our governance review, and yes, > the circumstances were quite different. > > I also think based on that experience review of WMF governance wouldn't > give the answers I think some people want to hear. In particular no > governance expert is going to do any of; > - criticise a board for having (and using ) the power to remove a trustee > whose presence makes it impossible for the board to do a good job > - suggest broadcasting board meetings live on the Internet > - jump down the Google rabbit hole that half of the posts on this list seem > to inhabit at the minute > > Generally governance reviews are quite healthy things and WMF should > consider having one at some point. Equally the recommendations and > methodology used for Wikimedia UK are well worth reading for all movement > organisations as much of it is general. Am on my tablet at present so can't > post a link but you can Google it (so long as you declare the fact) > > Regards, > > Chris Keating > On 10 Jan 2016 20:17, "Dariusz Jemielniak" <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent > > review > > > into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF > > commissioned > > > into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to > > > embrace. > > > > > > I'm not aware of a permanent decision ruling out such a review in the > > future as a part of good practice/continuous improvement. My > understanding > > is that the WMUK circumstances were quite extraordinary and definitely > our > > of process at the time. > > > > cheers, > > > > dj > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>