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>
