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. [1] 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 ]
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> 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: 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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