They were doing this regularly until January:
and see:
I suspect this dropped a bit in priority since then, for obvious reasons, but 
hopefully only temporarily.


> On 5 Mar 2016, at 17:11, Lodewijk <> wrote:
> 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
> discuss...
> Lodewijk
> 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:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to