I already proposed a "house of representatives" earlier to represent the stakeholders and take care of the diversity issue, appointing the BoT etc.
Regards, Thyge 2016-02-25 10:14 GMT+01:00 Jens Best <best.j...@gmail.com>: > just very short input here on the list: > > A community council or membership structure representing the diversity and > plurality of the movement in a democratic way would be great idea, in fact > it is a much needed idea to be realized. > > BUT: > > This structure would need to be a true counter-balance to WMF/BoT. > Therefore true power (decision-making, money etc.) would need to be > transfered in appropiate ways into the responsibility of this new > structure. If all the final decisionmaking would stay with the BoT and the > management of WMF any such more representative council would only be a > toothless thing. > > Best, > Jens > > 2016-02-25 5:21 GMT+01:00 James Alexander <jameso...@gmail.com>: > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic < > dvrande...@wikimedia.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic (as he knows). > > > > > > I must say I also disagree with you ;). > > > > That is not to say that a community council or membership structure of > some > > sort might not be good (I think there are some logistical challenges that > > are so difficult that it may not be possible... I'd rather us try to deal > > with things like global dispute resolution first before we try to think > > about some governance council... but the idea is certainly intriguing) > but > > I think the idea that that body is 100% independent or that the board > > itself should not/is not speaking for the movement too is missing some of > > the point and being far too simplistic for the good of the org and the > > movement. I know you don't really mean it this way but it can easily come > > across as a bit of "don't look at me if this was bad for the movement I > had > > to ignore that". > > > > > > > I think that > > > a body that is able to speak for the movement as a whole would be > > extremely > > > beneficial in order to relieve the current Board of Trustees of the > > > Wikimedia Foundation from that role. It simply cannot - and indeed, > > legally > > > must not - fulfill this role. > > > > > > > > > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that > will > > > be true now matter how much you reorganize it: > > > > > > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - > > not > > > to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a > > > conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the > > > Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the > Foundation. > > > They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so. > > > > > > - the Board members have fiduciary responsibilities. No, we cannot just > > > talk about what we are doing. As said, the loyalty of a Board member is > > > towards the organization, not the movement. > > > > > > > > > Whether the board wants it or not it DOES end up serving a leadership > role > > in the Movement and arguably the top leadership role. Yes it has a > > fiduciary responsibility to the org but part of that is it also has a > "duty > > of obedience". That duty of obedience includes, ensuring the board > members > > "have a responsibility to be faithful to the organization’s stated > mission > > and not to act or use its resources in incompatible ways or purposes" in > > addition to ensuring the org follows applicable laws.  So if we don't > > think that the Foundation has to do what's best for the movement as well > > then perhaps we should be reevaluating the wording of that mission. > > > > I would say a non-profit has an obligation to wind itself down if its > > mission (and remaining money) is better served elsewhere (as an extreme > > example, but one I've certainly seen) or to transfer the copyrights out > of > > country if that was the right move etc. A duty to the organization does > not > > meant that you do not have a duty to the movement and so I think it is > > wrong to try and side step that under the umbrella of fiduciary > > responsibility which is much more then just money and personnel. > > > > [Could say a lot more but probably not useful here and now :) I feel > like I > > either need to do that over drinks or have a bit more distance between > the > > current crisis & time to write it all down in a more coherent fashion ] > > > >  > > > > > http://www.trusteemag.com/display/TRU-news-article.dhtml?dcrPath=/templatedata/HF_Common/NewsArticle/data/TRU/WebExclusives/2013/WebExclusive0613legalduties > > (among many other sites) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>