Thanks, Kat, for that very clear explanation. On Friday, 29 January 2016, Kat Walsh <[email protected]> wrote:
> The advisory board basically never gets used as a group (and IMO it > wouldn't really make sense to). In my experience, people named to the > list fill one of a few functions: > > 1. Big Names who don't have the time to commit to being on the board > or are otherwise unsuited to being one of the main decision-makers, > but whose formal association with the project makes sense and is > beneficial. (I think of Clay Shirky as one of these: he is busy with > his existing work, but he is a great champion of the projects; he's > given presentations and press mentions that were helpful, consults on > some issues, and has offered his university's resources.) > > 2. People who are prominent in some area relevant to the projects and > whose work touches on it, who offer their expertise in their > particular domain and may be all but invisible to others. (Melissa > Hagemann is an example--she is prominent in open access and the people > working in that domain have worked with her, but people outside of it > may not see her work.) > > 3. People who have held high-level formal roles within WMF and whose > continued connection is recognized through being named an advisor. In > an organization with Senior Fellows, this is probably what we would be > called; it basically recognizes that although these people no longer > hold their roles, they continue to be supporters and advisors and > would like to continue to be available to offer their input and > expertise. I fall into this role, for example, and the structure of > having the formal connection makes it easier for current board and > staff to call on me. (FWIW, I was named to the advisory board by a > resolution after my term ended, though I see the page is poorly-enough > maintained that I'm not listed.) > > 4. People we hoped would fall into one of these roles, but who have > not actually kept up the relationship or whose guidance turned out not > to meet our needs. > > It is useful to have a formal structure to call on people for their > help; most of the help the AB members provided in my experience was > through 1-on-1 consultation (more by Sue than by myself). But I think > there are more people in category 4 than there ought to be. The > renewal mechanism was intended to make it easier to graceully remove > people who fell into that category without making it feel like they > were "fired", but as it turns out if you renew some but not others, > people will feel that way no matter how gracefully you try to do it, > and probably not wrongly--and since they are all people who were > originally named because of a desire to strengthen the relationship, > souring it by ending their terms is a very difficult thing to do, > especially when it is easy to keep them. > > Yes, the advisory board is invited to Wikimania with travel expenses > covered, though of the few members who come, some pay their own way > anyhow; the financial cost is relatively small. (I would say I made a > principled stand to pay my own way last year, but really I just > waffled over it for a while until it was late enough that I'd have > been embarrassed to submit receipts.) > > In my tenure the advisory board was considered a few times, but it was > just never a high-priority item; I am aware of it having been > considered again last year but not sure if anything came of it. The > main drawback I think of is that people tend to forget it exists until > too late in a decision process, and many who could usefully consult > them don't even know who is on the advisory board, what their > backgrounds are, and how receptive they are to messages, so it is hard > to use them effectively. > > -Kat > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tanvir Rahman <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > As far as I heard, the WMF employees and Board use the advisory board > > according to their need. Sometimes they are share their thoughts as a > team, > > sometimes individually, according to their expertise. > > > > I have mentioned to an adviser once that it would be better to have a > group > > submission from the Wikimedia advisory board in the Wikimania to fill-in > > the community about their work and need. How do they work/collaborate and > > so on. It does not need to share anything confidential or something, but > it > > helps the community a lot how this mechanism functions. > > > > T. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> -- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
