On 2/28/16 6:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I think it is far more likely that if the board is conducting its business
> in a non-transparent manner, and has done for as long as it has existed,
> then that is because Jimmy Wales, more than anyone else, likes it that way.

No, this is wrong.  I think things should be much more transparent at
the WMF generally, and with the board in particular.  One of the things
that I would invite toward this end is a program of invited board
observers from people who are well known and well trusted by the
community, who can be trusted to keep confidential information
confidential, sitting in on nearly every minute of every board meeting.

I don't support filming board meetings because I don't want to end up in
a world where board meetings are "shows" with people making speeches to
pander to certain constituencies.  These are working meetings with
people exploring ideas - self-censorship to avoid possibly offending
some subset of people wouldn't be healthy.  But there are other ways to
add to transparency.

I think that nearly every presentation made to the board by staff should
be published - possibly with certain things redacted if they really are
confidential.

> For example, on the Transparency Gap page on Meta WMF staffer Adam Wight
> recently said much the same as what Chris Sherlock has been saying here:
> that the board does not publish detailed minutes.

I've not been involved in writing or publishing minutes for many years,
if ever.  I'd like to see them be more detailed.

--Jimbo


_______________________________________________
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