On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider
> > whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the
> > larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
>
>
> I can only speak for myself here, but I'm really not tied to my position :)
> If there is a clear signal from the wider community that I should step
> down, I will. I'm not sure how this should work (obviously, there should be
> some practical balance between a valid concern of a community at large, and
> just a couple of people seeking disruption - which I'm not saying is the
> case here, just thinking about not creating a precedence),


Dariusz,

I think any steps that can be taken preemptively -- that is, steps that
avoid the need for broad community deliberation about who should step down
and who shouldn't -- would be most welcome. It seems rather clear to me
that whatever Trustees led the charge on the actions that have caused
strife are the ones whose departure would be the most beneficial. I suppose
I, like others, have some opinions about who those Trustees might be, but I
very much hope we are all spared the need to share our speculations
(especially because those of us outside the Board have very limited
information about its internal workings).

I believe that the community (including our staff) is the source of our
> competitive advantage. Not tech (great as it may be), not content (great as
> it is, but free to take). If this very community decides that I have failed
> in my role, or even that I have not, but there is a common perception that
> my continued tenure will not advance the movement, that's the way to go.
>

Thank you for articulating this principle. I won't comment on specific
Trustees here, but I do think that genuine participation (demonstrating
good listening, in addition to sharing views) in public forums is a great
asset in a Trustee, and some have exhibited that quality better than others.

I don't think it would be wise to have a total simultaneous Board step-down
> though - at least a situation of zero continuity is dangerous.


I agree that this is not a step to be taken lightly, and may not be needed
here. But given the extent of current problems, I wouldn't rule it out
entirely. It would of course have to be accompanied by a *very* strong
plan, *very* well vetted and communicated, for next steps. It is possible,
for instance, for current board members to continue to serve the movement
by sharing their knowledge (privately and/or publicly), without necessarily
having the authority of a voting position.

One thing that I hope is under careful consideration is the value of a seat
reserved for an individual (whether enshrined in the Bylaws or in
tradition). If Jimmy Wales were to stand for election, I am confident he
would win; but I think that method of getting on the board would be better
than Founder's Seat as an institution (as long as it doesn't come at the
expense of an existing community seat).

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
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