Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the
meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings
(the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would
indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to


On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ariel Glenn WMF <> wrote:

> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
> by waving a wand and have it be so.
> I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
> different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with
> universal agreement except to redact large parts.  A lot of it involved "I
> did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context".
> Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without
> being content-free.
> And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the
> side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the
> shadows.  If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative
> bodies ;-)
> So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps
> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days
> after any meeting.  This would mean publishing: the items brought into the
> meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and
> those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting.
> Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted
> before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable.
> Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it
> and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc.
> Ariel
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin <>
> wrote:
> > This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the
> board
> > meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
> > decided elsewhere.
> >
> > Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like
> wheeling
> > a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the
> Board
> > of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent.  The only real
> > solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also
> > from the community.  What can *we* as community members do to assist the
> > WMF in being transparent?
> >
> > Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings
> > could do with a little more detail.  If brevity is wit, then the existing
> > minutes are positively Wildean.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W <> wrote:
> >
> > > Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be
> > > a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to