Or perhaps a key problem is the recruitment process to the Board .
Fort the community elected seats, wanted criteria were identified by the
Board and clearly communicated (non-western, non English speakers) but
was in practice ignores by the voters and where 3 out of the five
getting most votes were US-based. This could be fixed with a more active
election committee, who could either give a go/nogo for candidates or
any way give a clear feedback of the nominated candidates in how well
they fit into.
For the chapters based seats the original intention was to enable
excellent candidates to turn up if less well known by the community in
general. In practice though the process favours the well known
candidates. Also here a more active election committee could make a
difference.
Anders
Den 2016-02-27 kl. 03:17, skrev Risker:
No, I think we've actually done a very superficial identification of the
problems. Some of them are so obvious that they are overwhelming the less
obvious but equally serious issues.
Honestly, "we need a new board" is probably not an issue. 40% of the board
has been seated for less than a year, and another seat is empty and
awaiting someone who probably won't have been a WMF board member before.
Two more seats are currently being contested. It is entirely conceivable
that by the time we get to Wikimania we will only have two people with more
than 14 months' experience on the board. No, "new board" isn't an issue,
despite how many people keep saying it is; transfer of information at the
hand-off last Wikimania probably was an issue, and new board member
orientation definitely was (and is). The issues with the appointment of
one of the "board selected" members recently was at least partly because,
as I understand it, there has never been a written process for how to vet
potential board members for most of the things we all assumed board members
were screened for. WHile I'll be the first to admit I rolled my eyes too,
I'm hard-pressed to openly condemn a bunch of people who'd never done a
task before for not getting it perfectly right. (Note that even the WMF
staffer assigned to assist in the vetting, Boryana Dineva, had been an
employee for only a few days when handed the assignment, knowing almost
nothing about the community, the organization, the board, or even what to
look for when vetting a potential board member.)
So, "let's restructure the board" is a wish-list item. The structure of the
board wasn't a root cause. The processes of the board, including the
orientation process, and the lack of documentation or clarity of the
process, were much closer to root causes here.
That's just one example.
Risker/Anne
On 26 February 2016 at 21:04, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
Risker and Brion:
I very much agree with the principles you're stating, and am coming to
realize I should have framed my message differently. There has actually
been quite a lot of discussion of what the problems are, and I am basing my
suggestions on the ones that I've personally seen a lot of attention to.
Namely (as I stated, in part, above):
* It might take a very long time to get a new ED, which would be bad
* We might get an ED who does not effectively absorb information and values
from staff and community
* Appointing an interim ED in a hurry (one month) might not bring us
somebody who's best for the long term
* Funders (both institutions and individuals) might be skeptical about
giving, due to recent issues
* On Point #6, a great deal of work has already been done on identifying
problems here, and I look forward to seeing more synthesis etc. on wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap
There is, I agree, much more work to be done in identifying and clarifying
further problems we should be looking to address. But from what I've read
and heard, there seems to be some pretty strong consensus around the
problems I've identified above; and ideally, I would have stated that out
in an intro to my message. If there is *disagreement* on those issues, I
think it would be good to hear it.
Along with you, I welcome further deliberation of what the problems are
that should be solved, and if I suggested otherwise I regret giving that
impression.
I strongly hope and believe, though, that the Board is already working to
address the subset of rather obvious problems that is at least similar to
what I listed above. Those problems need to be addressed quickly, and I
believe it's best if various stakeholders in the Wikimedia vision -- not
just the 9 members of the Board -- weigh in on the best way to address
them. If there is a consensus that we shouldn't do that here in public, I
can take it off this list; but speaking for myself, I'd like to see some
public deliberation and consensus-building about more immediate steps,
rather than a bunch of individual efforts to lobby the Board.
I don't intend any of this to be a total solution. Regarding Keegan's
response, of course there is always a seat at the table! But I appreciate
your speaking up about it. Still, my list is very much influenced by what I
have heard from staff, board, etc. over many months -- so it's not like
your seat is getting cold without you. :)
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Strong +1 to Risker.
Collecting ideas to work more on as we move forward: YES. Keeping the
constructive attitude and opened comm channels I've seen here and and
among
staff internally: YES.
But let's be deliberate, and considerate. We do have to learn and process
before we implement anything.
That all said I think I'm approaching my monthly list message quota, so
I'm
probably going to quiet down on list for a bit as I talk to people in SF.
:)
I'll be making public-side notes on meta under my user page.
-- brion
On Feb 26, 2016 4:59 PM, "Risker" <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think in fairness that it is not just staff who are feeling this is
all
moving too fast. The overwhelming majority of community members, and
in
particular community members who don't read and speak English fluently,
are
likely to be pretty overwhelmed right now too.
I am concerned that what we are seeing right now are a whole pile of
solutions when we haven't yet worked out what the actual problems are.
This is actually quite a bad thing, because it creates a climate where
people come to a conclusion about what to do before they have worked
out
whether or not it is solving a problem, creating a different problem,
"fixing" a non-existent problem, or immaterial to the actual problems.
Let's work out what went wrong before we really start pushing what we
think
will make things right. The foundation is not a wiki where quick and
easy
corrections are considered the norm; in fact, based on the concerns of
some
that strategy changed practically on a quarterly basis, some slow
considered thinking is probably called for. The Wikimedia movement has
not
had time to catch up with current events and certainly doesn't need
solutions before it's barely worked out why there's a trainwreck on the
mailing list. And...perhaps most importantly.... we are talking about
real
people here. The board and executives, the staff, the community
members....we're all people. Moving too fast without figuring out what
the
actual issues are is harmful to the human beings here.
The collective "we" have not had time to understand the problems.
Quite a
few of the "solutions" I've seen on this list in the last 24-48 hours
are
nothing much more than personal wishlists; almost all of them are
proposing
to solve problems that may or may not even exist.
Let's work more on problem identification first.
Risker/Anne
On 26 February 2016 at 19:44, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
wrote:
To Oliver and Keegan -- I hear you guys loud and clear, and I am very
aware
that the trauma of the last few months has taken this kind of toll.
Although there is of course much I don't know, I have been talking
with a
number of staff, board, etc. for many months now about this. So to
whatever
degree it's possible to empathize without "being there," I do.
However, I'm not trying to push things forward at a pace that's
comfortable
*for me*, I'm trying to focus on things that will impact *what it's
possible to do*.
The prospect of a drawn-out, even multi-year search for the next
long-term
Executive Director is not a good one. The way the organization
rebuilds
itself and sets expectations will have a huge impact on that. The
impact
on
fund-raising will be felt, as well; high-profile contention around a
grant
is being discussed throughout the philanthropy world, and will impact
the
way individual donors respond to banners, as well.
I am confident that the Board is already turning its attention to
issues
like these. Many things need to be done whenever an executive
director
leaves an organization, and there are many reasons to attend to them
in a
timely fashion -- without rushing through and making bad decisions.
Individual Trustees have expressed interest and gratitude for the
ideas
under discussion, and I appreciate knowing that they are considering
input.
This list may not be the best way to reach the board, but it's a good
place
to see whether there is consensus around certain ideas.
That's what I'm trying to do. I know that forging ahead while
exhausted
sucks, and I am not trying to push anybody faster than they want to
go.
But
I also think that this moment for careful deliberation shouldn't be
missed;
some of the opportunities will pass by very quickly if nothing is
done.
-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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>
