It seems that the Chairman of the Board "fail[s] to see what community input could have brought" to its decision to "delegate the authority to adopt, alter, and revoke policies to the Executive Director," the purpose of which was "making the legal team life's easier when they need to dosmall and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the wholeresolution process to change a comma".
Points that members of the community might have made include: 1. The resolution as adopted is without limitation and far broader than needed to achieve its intended effect. A limiting clause could and should have been inserted such as "Changes shall be made only for the purpose of clarification, or in cases of immediate necessity, and reported to the Board at the earliest opportunity: they shall cease to have effect at the next meeting of the Board unless approved by the Board at that meeting. *"* *2. *The resolution does not provide transparency as to (a) what policies are imposed by the Executive Director or her sub-delegates or (b) who those authorised sub-delegates are. Point (a) would have been secured by a clause stating "The Executive Director shall maintain the details of policies adopted, altered, or revoked under this authority and publish them at [a suitable location] and no such policy shall be effective until so published." Point (b) would have been secured by a clause stating "The Executive Director shall maintain a list of persons authorised to adopt, alter or revoke policies and publish that list at [a suitable location]. No statement by a person not on that list shall be, or claim to be, a policy of the Foundation, and nothing shall be a policy of the Foundation unless expressly stated to be so by a person on that list". Presumably the Board considered these points explicitly in their own private delberations -- I make that assumption since the Chair is confident that it is impossible for the community to have contributed anything to the deliberations that the Board in their own collective wisdom were not already cognisant of. The result is that the Board have handed unlimited authority to the executive to make policy, and the community have no way of knowing what that policy now is, or who is accountable for making it. We presume that was the Board's intention. Why do they believe this is a good idea in general, or compatible with their commitment to transparency in particular? Rogol Domedonfors _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>