+1 to what Lodewijk, Anders, and James wrote. I see benefits in onboarding around Wikimania, and having a system in which each year we add three people (one year from the community, one from chapters, one from experts).
However, I don't see it as an argument to extend the terms for current trustees for a transition period. There should be some limit (6 years now), and also reappointments in the case of experts should be based both on the organizational needs, the level of expertise offered, and the energy and value added - just as Anders mentioned, these are not always given and stable. You wrote that " in case this extension is too much to ask from the current trustees, I'd rather leave the seats vacant." I personally would rather fill the currently empty expert seat in January, at the same time that the remaining two seats are open for (re/)appointment and set their term till Wikimania 2018.l, so that it clicks perfectly with the desires calendar. 1.5 year is a short but manageable term, that for new people will also offer us some ability to check them out, and for veterans will not as much strain as a full term. Yes, we will have a lot of onboarding (twice in a year in 2017), but it is still better than potentially onboarding 6 entirely new people at the same time; part of continuity is avoiding total revamping (if terms were extended by half a year), and better than extending by a really long period of 1.5 years. Best Dj "pundit" On Nov 5, 2016 14:12, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > Hi Nataliia, > > It would have been nice if you could have shared this a bit earlier, given > that apparently the board meeting is next week. This gives little time for > discussion of your proposal, on a topic that has received wide interest > previously. Perhaps that could be considered a point for improvement, > especially on these non-urgent reform topics. That gives you more time to > incorporate the feedback into your proposal. > > I destilled a few different topics from your email: > 1) Better onboarding processes > - sounds great to me. Please feel free to invite community members in > setting up such processes as well. I understood that something like that > was aimed to happen at past Wikimania, and that sounds like a good move! > Getting a clear 'synopsis' would probably also help, something that can > serve as a reference point to make sure that nothing is missing. I would > also advise the method I have seen some WMF employees use (but this may be > more time consuming), and that is to have the new board members do some > 'interviews' or in general structured conversations with community members, > staff members and other stakeholders during their first months. Wikimania > is a great opportunity for that. > > 2) Changing the 'entry point' for appointed board members from January to > Wikimania > - May be sensible or not. The upside is that more things happen at once, > which means less repetition. The downside is that everything happens.. at > once. You'll have potentially a board meeting where 40% is brand new. > That's a lot. I don't have a strong preference either way, but whatever you > choose, I think it'd be good to introduce an observer status for upcoming > board members in the months leading up to their formal appointment - if > that doesn't exist yet - especially for people with less of a Wikimedia > background. You could use the January-Wikimania gap for that. > > 3) you propose longer terms > - 3 year terms are already quite long in my opinion. Continuity can happen > in two ways: because you force it to happen (i.e. by longer terms), or > because people get re-appointed/re-selected. In the past years there was a > lot of turnover in the community and chapter seats because the latter did > not happen: board members were not re-selected. There is probably some > relationship with how the board performance was appreciated by the > electorate. And one could argue that in such a case, it might maybe be > better to not force more continuity - because it also results in less > opportunity to improve the board when there's an observed need for that. In > this light, I would definitely not be in favour for lengthening the term > lengths other that the occasional 6 months to make entry points fit > together better. > > I hope this caught the changes you're proposing? Please correct me if I > missed something. > > Thanks for sharing though, and I hope that you'll engage in a constructive > discussion despite the short time left before the board meeting :) > > Best, > Lodewijk > > > > 2016-11-05 13:07 GMT+01:00 Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org>: > > > Hi all, > > > > I am forking a discussion on Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees > vacant > > appointed seat(s) and turnover at this point. > > > > == The Board members start and end terms (Turnover) == > > I have drafted here three charts indicating the starting and ending of > the > > terms of the Board members: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_ > > Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_terms > > > > The first chart shows how it will go now, if nothing is changed. > > > > As you can see we have a lot of onboarding / offboarding even without > > anything extraordinary happening, and it means that the Board has > scarcely > > any time to work as a team and concentrate on things beyond looking for > new > > people and onboarding them. > > > > The picture is "darkened" by the fact that the onboarding process is not > > formalized enough and I would rather concentrate on working on improving > > the onboarding process, so we have it in place when new members join, > > rather then rush to appoint new Trustees. > > > > We had a discussion about it in the Board Governanace Committee (BGC), > and > > it seems that having less on- and off-boardings-points per year (f.ex., > at > > Wikimania) should be something to plan for. And less people joining per > > year. > > > > The second and third charts illustrate this idea: every year three new > > trustees join the Board, with the community-, affiliates- and appointed > > seats joining in different years (well, one appointed seat join together > > with the affiliates). > > > > Of course the transition period will be a challenge. But it should > improve > > the workflow. > > > > == Continuity == > > The second and third charts also suggests that the terms are extended. > WMF > > had a really turbulent last two years, this Board (from my perspective) > > needs some time to work together as a group, so (again, my perspective) I > > would really love if the terms can be extended, so we can concentrate on > > improving how we work and creating / formalizing the processes. > > > > But in case this extension is too much to ask from the current trustees, > > I'd rather leave the seats vacant. > > > > == Onboarding and Pool of candidates == > > Just so it is clear to everyone, it is a real challenge if a new trustee > > joins. It should not be so. We have started collecting things for a new > > Board member to have a smoother onboarding process. > > > > There is also an idea about having Advisory Board working: to not lose > the > > knowledge we had with every trustee who leaves the Board, but maybe we > can > > also use this group as a pool of excellent possible candidates to > "optimize > > the hiring process" [1]. And joining the Advisory Board can also be used > to > > onboard people gently. Without too much time commitment, working rather > on > > separate tasks, but already being included in the discussions to some > > level. > > > > == Discussion == > > I hope it is clear from things I said above, but in case it is not, the > > discussion is not finalized yet and I plan to have it decided one way or > > another at the Board meeting in a week. It should be decided, so the BGC > > can move on with hiring new Board members or concentrate on the > improvement > > of the hiring and onboarding processes; so the Standing Elections > committee > > can plan the timeline; so the Chair of the Board can plan the dates for > the > > Board meetings for the next year etc. > > > > As I have mentioned before, please comment / suggest. I have listed the > > problems I myself see from the inside. And my thoughts about that. You > can > > raise questions and concerns from your points of views. The more issues > > discussed, the more informed our decision will be. > > > > If you prefer posting on Meta, please comment / suggest on the relevant > > talk pages: > > - The Board members start and end terms > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_ > > Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_terms> > > - Appointing someone to the vacant appointed seat > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_ > > Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Appointing_someone_ > > to_the_vacant_appointed_seat&action=edit&redlink=1> > > - Onboarding for new members > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_ > > Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Onboarding_for_new_ > > members&action=edit&redlink=1> > > > > And (just in case) please understand that all mentioned above is my > > understanding of how things stand and my conclusions on how to move > forward > > better, based on things I heard from the BGC members and other people I > had > > talks with. It does not represent the position the BGC is going to > > recommend, or the Board will approve. So I would welcome negative and > > positive comments equally well. > > > > [1] > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/ > > 2016-03-16/Op-ed > > > > Best regards, > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv > > > > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal > working > > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You > > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in > > advance!* > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > In case my blanket "I disagree" left doubt, let me state very clearly > -- > > > I'm not seeking anybody's resignation here. (Just reread Dan's message > > and > > > realized it's possible the beginning of my response could be read that > > way, > > > though I think I'm pretty clear further down.) > > > -Pete > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dan, I disagree. Three points: > > > > > > > > 1. Rogol explicitly said they *hesitate* to suggest that anybody > > resign; > > > > nobody on this list has asked her to resign. Best not to exaggerate. > > > > > > > > 2. It is true that there is a higher level of scrutiny of the board > > than > > > > there has been in the past. We should not forget that in the last > year, > > > the > > > > board or its members: > > > > * Ousted a community-selected member, for reasons generally regarded > as > > > > frivolous and insufficient; > > > > * Defamed that same person following his ouster > > > > * Appointed a new member with insufficient vetting, who subsequently > > had > > > > to resign under pressure > > > > * Lost another community-selected member, who cited reasons he had > been > > > > explicitly aware of during his candidacy > > > > * Appointed a member to a community-selected seat who had not, in > fact, > > > > been selected by the community (I don't think this was actually a bad > > > move > > > > given the circumstances, but it's worth noting nonetheless) > > > > * Lost an executive director (amid scandal) it had hailed as a > perfect > > > > "unicorn" just two years ago > > > > > > > > It therefore stands to reason that people will be more critical than > > > usual > > > > of the board's activities. I would argue this is healthy. The board > > has a > > > > great deal of work to do in regaining the trust it has lost as an > > > > institution. (I'll note that I published some suggestions about > actions > > > the > > > > board could take; I have seen no indication that the board even read > > this > > > > op-ed, much less considered implementing its suggestions. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/ > > > > 2016-03-16/Op-ed ) > > > > > > > > 3. On the specifics mentioned here: Without suggesting that Ms. > Battles > > > or > > > > anybody has done anything wrong, it is indeed prudent, as Rogol > > suggests, > > > > to consider whether this might constitute a COI that directly impedes > > > > important work on Wikimedia's behalf. I'm personally not as worried > > about > > > > it as Rogol; I take it as a good sign that she has proactively > > announced > > > it > > > > here, and I trust it will be noted in a more visible location as > well. > > I > > > am > > > > not sure that her area of specialization (finance) is something that > > > would > > > > really suffer from this particular COI. But as important as legal > > vetting > > > > may be, it remains important that somebody pay attention to the fit > of > > > > board members with the general mission of the organization -- and I > > > > wouldn't expect WMF staff lawyers to fill that role. Ordinarily, I > > think > > > it > > > > would be the board's role to pay attention to that -- but for the > > reasons > > > > stated above, I think it's worthwhile if others in the movement pay > > > > attention too. > > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Dan Garry <dga...@wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> The mere potential that a conflict of interest may arise in the > future > > > is > > > >> not necessarily a reason to resign from the board. This is why we > have > > > >> legal counsel such as Stephen and Michelle to determine whether such > > > >> conflicts are serious enough to be inappropriate. We should all be > > > >> satisfied with their opinions that this situation is fine in light > of > > > >> their > > > >> reputation, experience, and credentials; I know I am. > > > >> > > > >> Minor conflicts of interest sometimes arise. That is normal, and as > > > Kelly > > > >> said, such conflicts can be managed. For example, when it happens, > the > > > >> relevant party can do things like recusing themselves from that > > > discussion > > > >> and stepping out of the room until the discussion is complete. This > is > > > >> standard procedure adopted by boards of other organisations, and > also > > in > > > >> parts of our movement such as the Arbitration Committees or Funds > > > >> Dissemination Committee. > > > >> > > > >> Additionally, I am disturbed by the recent trend of seemingly all > > > threads > > > >> involving members of the Board of Trustees inevitably having someone > > > >> asking > > > >> a trustee to resign. I hope this absurdity does not continue. > > > >> > > > >> Dan > > > >> > > > >> On 2 November 2016 at 22:34, Rogol Domedonfors < > domedonf...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Congratuations to Kelly Battles on her new job at Quora. I > believe > > > I'm > > > >> > correct in saying that this is a company whose business is to > make a > > > >> profit > > > >> > by pursuing its "mission is to share and grow the world’s > > knowledge". > > > >> > Surely that means that in general the more and better the > Wikimedia > > > >> > projects pursue their mission, the more they will undercut Quora's > > > >> > business? In particular, would not the Knowledge Engine, at least > > as > > > >> > originally conceived, be very much in direct competition with > > Quora's > > > >> > question-and-answer model? It seems to me that Kelly's duty to > her > > > new > > > >> > employer is likely to come very clearly into conflict with her > duty > > to > > > >> the > > > >> > Foundation, and while it is posible that this can be managed, will > > it > > > >> not > > > >> > seriously diminish her ability to work with the Board on the > > strategic > > > >> > thinking they are just about to start? I hestiate to suggest that > > > >> Kelly's > > > >> > best course of action is to step down from the Board but I do > > believe > > > it > > > >> > needs serious consideration by herself and her fellow Trustees -- > it > > > is > > > >> not > > > >> > clear whether it is better for the Board to have another vacancy, > > or a > > > >> > Trustee who is unable to engage in the strategy-setting which is > so > > > bady > > > >> > needed. Indeed, with two vacancies already, and no clear > indication > > > of > > > >> > when or how they will be filled, I suggest that the Board is in a > > > rather > > > >> > awkward position now. > > > >> > > > > >> > "Rogol" > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > 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> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Dan Garry > > > >> Lead Product Manager, Discovery > > > >> Wikimedia Foundation > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > > >> i/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>
