To clarify, the issues facing the WMF preexisted Denny, Dariusz and myself joining the board. Our perspectives started the process of addressing things. In fact I raised concerns regarding staff turn over a couple of weeks before joining the board at Wikimania.
James On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv <[email protected]> wrote: > Lodewijk, Anders, James, Dariusz, thanks for your input! > > Re: timing. I absolutely agree. But internal discussions are not happening > at once as well, before writing this I have waited for people to chime in > with the arguments to have my own opinion shaped. I would really love to > find a good balance between transparency and efficiency and safe space for > discussions. But I haven't found it. I had a plan to publish this last > week, so there would be at least two weeks for discussing, but > unfortunately I had some work and health related issues that prevented me > from writing this sooner. Remember, there is no shared understanding on the > desired level of transparency, and how to achieve that transparency [1] > > Re: onboarding. An interesting idea. I was also thinking of having some > kind of "a letter" from one outgoing Board member to the incoming Board > member, but it (probably) should be not personal, rather officer wise (the > chair of the Audit committee to the next chair of the Audit committee). > > Re: extended terms. Aye, Lodewijk, I can see reasoning behind "6 months to > make entry points fit together better". Though I can also understand that > this is not the time to lose expertise. > > Anders, I also agree. Three year time sounds better, as it is really > difficult to become a part of the team in a shorter period of time: we have > a few in-person meetings and it is not that we interact with each other too > much (well, at this point I would rather say even "enough" rather than too > much). > > James, yes, the challenges were really big. The issue is to learn from the > crisis. And just to clarify, you said that "New perspective can be > critical" - are you referring to new people joining the Board? > > Dariusz, Alice, for example, haven't served 6 years yet, if I am not > mistaken. It seems that this is her fourth/fifth year. > And I doubt her expertise is not needed anymore. Probably now more than > ever. > > Yes, onboarding of 6 new members does not seem optimal, even four seem to > be a little too much. > But there is a possibility that some not brand new people would join the > Board. > And I hope we will improve the onboarding process (having people join as > members of the Advisory Board or just non-voting observers can be a good > practice to implement). > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ > Board_Governance_Committee/Board_transparency/Status_report_October_2016 > > 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 Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 3:28 PM, James Heilman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The last group of community elected trustees were presented with an > > exceedingly difficult issue to solve months into their term. Moral among > > staff was critically low and many key employees had left, were leaving, > or > > were thinking about leaving. > > > > The board at that time disagreed about what to do about the situation in > > question. We saw turn over of three board members at the end of 2015 > > including Jan Bart, Stu West, and myself. The community gained greater > > clarity of the issues and played a critical roll in pushing for a new ED. > > We are now in a much better position than before even though it took > longer > > to get there than I had hoped. > > > > The issues became more solvable in part as we saw two long term board > > members leave after more than six years on the board. I am supportive of > 6 > > year maximum term limits. New perspective can be critical. > > > > James > > > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > >> 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: [email protected] > > > > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > > , > > > > >> > <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] > > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > , > > > > >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject= > > unsubscribe> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > James Heilman > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
