Den 2016-06-03 kl. 21:35, skrev Michael Peel:
On 3 June 2016 at 03:19, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se>
3.The composition of the Board, mandates given to members of the Board and
by whom, formal relation between the Board and the stakeholders of our
movement, is a complete mess. And an audit would only be able to state
this, not how it ought to be resolved.
I would hope that a review would be a review, not an audit, i.e. it would look
at options for improving matters, not just saying what the current situation
is. This was the case for WMUK, and was done by looking at external best
practices, and by interviewing other stakeholders in the organisation./Mmike
If it could be run that way I believe it would be of tremendous value.
This is issues that you typically get "home-blind" on, and a proper
review on how other has solved it and what research says about it
together with competence in the specifics of NGOs in US could give the
Board and us all new insights and ideas! And an opportunity to attack
what I believe is at the root of the problems we have encountered around
the Board operations (and I know it is NOT the individuals in it, they
are good and clever persons).
Lets hope something like this an be initiated
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com