Personally I'd argue that WMF should only spend their (and everyone's) time
and energy on consultation when it's a substantive issue.

Chris


On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
wrote:

> Hi Christophe,
>
> I'm afraid that does not answer my question. If it changes absolutely
> nothing, it would be an unnecessary resolution. So surely there is
> *something* that changes (and that doesn't have to be a bad thing), such as
> improved clarity or legal certainty. But probably you're right - and this
> is more symbolic than anything else. And in that sense your response also
> feels more symbolic than anything else.
>
> If your statement 'I fail to see what community input could have brought'
> truly reflects your opinion, that is quite saddening, and what I feared but
> did not want to assume. It would be honest though, because it implies that
> you wouldn't have changed your mind no matter what unimagined facts and
> arguments the community may have come up with.
>
> The argument that the decision makers cannot imagine what the stakeholders
> could bring to the discussion reflects an attitude that you have all the
> facts - a denial that there may be things that you don't know to not know.
>
> I hope this is an unfortunate glitch (which can happen).
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-12-22 8:13 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > I feel there might be a misunderstanding here :)
> >
> > Legal team has, for a long time now, always worked with the community on
> > policy updates.
> >
> > I don't see that changing.
> >
> > This is a technical / legal delegation. I fail to see what community
> input
> > could have brought. We needed to be able to make changes to policies more
> > easily, it is now possible.
> >
> > Does this mean it changes everything else, no.
> >
> > Le 21 déc. 2016 11:24 PM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > Hi Christophe, all,
> >
> > I wonder, was there an urgency to pass this resolution, or did I miss the
> > invitation for community members to give input on this proposal? It
> doesn't
> > look particularly sensitive so that it couldn't be shared in advance. It
> > has potentially direct impact on the functioning of the community. Seems
> > like a typical example where requesting input could be valuable. So I'd
> > like to understand the thinking behind the chosen process a little
> better.
> >
> > Basically I'd have liked the discussion in this thread to have been part
> of
> > the considerations, rather than a response to the resolution.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2016-12-21 4:45 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Hi Pine,
> > >
> > > If you don't mind I will address your different points separately.
> > >
> > > First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a
> > > board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That
> > > resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more
> efficiently.
> > It
> > > doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
> > >
> > > I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide
> > > supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time
> and
> > > energy to focus on the core roles of a board.
> > >
> > > Second, the requirements to answer the community. I'm sorry, here I
> > > answered quite spontaneously, you are right nothing forces us to.
> > >
> > > But, as I've said in my candidacy and in public some time I believe we
> > > have, as WMF board, a leadership duty. And I also believe you lead by
> > > example. I've always believed, in the movement, we are all partners. We
> > > need each other to push forward our mission. You treat partners the way
> > > yourself want to be treated by them. That is why I believe it is
> > important
> > > to communicate. It doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye on everything
> > but
> > > that when a question rise we should answer as much as we can. That's
> > > something I've said to nearly everyone who reached out to me in the
> past
> > > few month privately, my answer perhaps won't be the one you want, but
> at
> > > least there will be an answer and an explanation every time I can. Like
> > > right now actually :D
> > >
> > > Finally, regarding board governance review, Natalia, as chair of the
> BGC,
> > > published minutes of our meetings[1], and that is a key topic we
> address
> > > and not push aside. That being said it will be a board review, not one
> on
> > > that specific event. We will be able to provide more information on
> that
> > > topic soon I think :)
> > >
> > > I hope I answered your questions.
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > > Board_Governance_Committee
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Christophe HENNER
> > > Chair of the board of trustees
> > > chen...@wikimedia.org
> > > +33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>
> > >
> > > twitter *@schiste*        skype *christophe_henner*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Christophe,
> > > >
> > > > I wish it was true that the Board is required to answer the
> community's
> > > > questions, but that isn't the case. WMF isn't a membership
> > organization,
> > > > there isn't a policy that requires the Board to be responsive to
> > > community
> > > > input and questions, and the community has limited ability to
> influence
> > > the
> > > > Board (though I think it is wise for the Board to listen).
> > > >
> > > > My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive
> > to
> > > > community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions
> > and
> > > > input regarding human resources and governance matters. (For
> example, I
> > > > still haven't seen a good explanation of why WMF shouldn't undergo a
> > > > governance review in the wake of Doc James' dismissal; WMF has
> appeared
> > > to
> > > > try to brush that issue under the rug rather than address it with the
> > > level
> > > > of transparency and rigor that I feel it deserves.) Thankfully the
> > level
> > > of
> > > > responsiveness has improved since 2015, but it's incorrect to say
> that
> > > the
> > > > Board is required to respond to community questions.
> > > >
> > > > The vague nature of the resolution as MZMcBride quotes it makes me
> > > > uncomfortable. I would suggest revising the language of this
> resolution
> > > so
> > > > that it is clearer which kinds of changes the Board will require the
> > > > Executive Director to submit to the WMF Board for approval. I realize
> > > that
> > > > it may seem expedient to grant the Executive Director wide latitude,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > feel that the Board should provide more specificity, particularly
> given
> > > > what happened when the Board was apparently so lax with the
> supervision
> > > of
> > > > the previous Executive Director.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Christophe Henner <
> > > chen...@wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey,
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need
> to
> > do
> > > > > small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole
> > > > > resolution process to change a comma.
> > > > >
> > > > > We're still informed and are talking with staff about those
> changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for responsibility, we decided to delegate responsibility, but
> at
> > > the
> > > > > end of the day we still will have to answer the community's
> question
> > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Have a good day
> > > > >
> > > > > Christophe
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 20 déc. 2016 6:50 AM, "MZMcBride" <z...@mzmcbride.com> a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > This is probably of interest to this list.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Delegation_of_policy-ma
> > > > king_authority
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Delegation of policy-making authority
> > > > >
> > > > > This was approved on December 13, 2016 by the Board of Trustees.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whereas, the Board of Trustees has traditionally approved certain
> > > global
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation policies (such as the Privacy Policy and Terms
> > of
> > > > > Use) as requested during the July 4, 2004 Board meeting
> > > > > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/July_4,_2004>;
> > > > >
> > > > > Whereas, the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director has authority
> to
> > > > > conduct the affairs of the Wikimedia Foundation, which includes
> > > adopting
> > > > > and implementing policies;
> > > > >
> > > > > Resolved, the Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter,
> > and
> > > > > revoke policies to the Executive Director, who may further delegate
> > > such
> > > > > authority to Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate;
> > > > >
> > > > > Resolved, the Board may continue to review and approve policies for
> > the
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation upon request to the Executive Director or as
> > > > required
> > > > > by law.
> > > > >
> > > > > Approve
> > > > >
> > > > >    Christophe Henner (Chair), Maria Sefidari (Vice Chair), Dariusz
> > > > >    Jemielniak, Kelly Battles, Guy Kawasaki, Jimmy Wales, Nataliia
> > > Tymkiv,
> > > > >    and Alice Wiegand
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder how much of this resolution is formalizing what was
> already
> > > > > happening and how much of this is moving the Wikimedia Foundation
> in
> > a
> > > > new
> > > > > direction. After a very tumultuous year at the Wikimedia
> Foundation,
> > > this
> > > > > is certainly a notable development.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also wonder in what ways this abrupt change will alter the
> > > relationship
> > > > > between the editing communities and the Board of Trustees. The
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > > Foundation Board of Trustees seems to be committing itself to
> > > downsizing
> > > > > its role and responsibilities. The concern is that a change like
> this
> > > > will
> > > > > reduce accountability when policies are set, unset, and changed by
> > > > someone
> > > > > overseeing a large staff that regularly comes in conflict with an
> > even
> > > > > larger set of editing communities. The Executive Director, of
> course,
> > > is
> > > > > unelected and has been a central point of repeated controversies
> > > > recently.
> > > > > It's been less than a year since the previous Executive Director
> > > resigned
> > > > > after being forced out by her staff. In the context of the recent
> > > > history,
> > > > > this resolution is all the more puzzling.
> > > > >
> > > > > MZMcBride
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/%0Awiki/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/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/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>

Reply via email to