On 3 March 2016 at 07:53, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the > meeting > > > by the designated note taker(s)? > > > > > > Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve > > as minutes? > > > I'd appreciate a closer perspective on what that means; what sort of > changes actually happen between notes taken at the time and the eventual > publishing? Practically speaking, what could change in how they're taken or > reviewed to make sure that happens faster? > > the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the minutes that relate to my presentation/participation/comments. I've discovered that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed or are misinterpreted or key facts may be misreported or misrepresented. Even the ones that are almost entirely correct usually need some editing. There have been times when I've rewritten the entire section for the minute-taker. It may reflect on my ability to present the material, or the level of knowledge to understand the presentation, or something else entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is almost never completely right. (That's why we call them drafts...) For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board communications needs to deal with. I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their meeting minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large > part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be > discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board > communications needs to deal with. > > I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their meeting > minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time. > Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized without the need to organize yet another elections. To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but they would mostly be an observer. dj -- __________________________ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://n <http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/>wrds.kozminski.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
wrote: > > > Do you serve on any non-profit boards Chris? > > Chris > Chris Keating is on the board of the WMUK. In any case, it seems like there are many deliberative or legislative bodies that see themselves as responsible to the public which manage to videotape meetings. More than a few even broadcast them live on public television. There is always the opportunity to go into a non-public session for the discussion of confidential information. While this "speak to the camera" concern (which is the same reason why U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments are not videotaped) is valid... I think the fear is overblown. A potential alternative is to have a transcript of the meetings created and published, which might alleviate some anxiety for the camera shy. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On 3 March 2016 at 09:22, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a > large > > part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be > > discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that > board > > communications needs to deal with. > > > > I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their > meeting > > minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time. > > > > Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative > to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This > would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a > former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from > wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized > without the need to organize yet another elections. > > To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical > presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but > they would mostly be an observer. > > "Responsible for reviewing the minutes". This is a lovely ideal. Can we now be realistic? What do we really expect that "observer" to do? Will they have input in to what the minutes finally say? Do they have approval authority (i.e., do they get to vote on the acceptance of the minutes)? I'm not opposed to community members observing board meetings - I suspect many people will find them to be unexpectedly boring, with less substantive discussion than many would expect - but the objective should be a lot more clear. What about if they genuinely believe that the minutes (which most of us would recognize as having been written using a template) don't reflect or emphasize what the observer thinks were the key issues? Do they get to put forward publicly their own version of what happened or what they observed? Are they going to be permitted to observe the "executive session", where even the WMF staff are out of the room? I am fine with the general concept, but I don't think either the board or the community has really thought through the entire process. We should get it pretty much nailed down before it is implemented. Minute-taking is a skill - just as is writing a featured article or creating a featured image. Those who think it's an easy task that should be able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real experience with writing and managing minutes at the international non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not be the most important person in the lives of any of our board members. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > "Responsible for reviewing the minutes". This is a lovely ideal. Can we > now be realistic? What do we really expect that "observer" to do? Will > they have input in to what the minutes finally say? Do they have approval > authority (i.e., do they get to vote on the acceptance of the minutes)? > I'm not opposed to community members observing board meetings - I suspect > many people will find them to be unexpectedly boring, with less substantive > discussion than many would expect - but the objective should be a lot more > clear. What about if they genuinely believe that the minutes (which most > of us would recognize as having been written using a template) don't > reflect or emphasize what the observer thinks were the key issues? Do they > get to put forward publicly their own version of what happened or what they > observed? Are they going to be permitted to observe the "executive > session", where even the WMF staff are out of the room? I am fine with the > general concept, but I don't think either the board or the community has > really thought through the entire process. We should get it pretty much > nailed down before it is implemented. > > Minute-taking is a skill - just as is writing a featured article or > creating a featured image. Those who think it's an easy task that should be > able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real > experience with writing and managing minutes at the international > non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important > that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an > early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 > board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and > approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not be > the most important person in the lives of any of our board members. > > hi Anne, I appreciate your criticism, it definitely helps to shoot down ideas early, before they can mature ;) What I'm getting at is trying to find a sensible form of addressing the community's concerns without making the whole Board meetings public (I don't think it is impossible, I basically think that it would entirely change the dynamics of the meetings - there would be an incentive for the community-elected members to speak up to gain political support, for example; this idea calls for just as much shredding apart as the "observer" one). The observer I have in mind would not be responsible for taking the minutes (as you've pointed out, it is a skill), but reviewing them. Anyhow, it is just an ad-hoc idea that I think could be refined, if it was perceived as addressing the problem of the Board meetings being overly cryptic and secretive for the general public. dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Risker
On Mar 3, 2016 6:16 AM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I often participate and present at meetings where I am not formally part of > the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the minutes > that relate to my presentation/participation/comments. I've discovered > that in about 60% of the draft minutes I review, major points are missed or > are misinterpreted or key facts may be misreported or misrepresented. Even > the ones that are almost entirely correct usually need some editing. There > have been times when I've rewritten the entire section for the > minute-taker. It may reflect on my ability to present the material, or the > level of knowledge to understand the presentation, or something else > entirely - but the bottom line is that the first draft of minutes is almost > never completely right. (That's why we call them drafts...) This makes me think "release early, release often" -- quick publishing of draft notes so they can be reviewed and questions asked for clarification. And/or lean further on recording to ensure that incorrect or missing notes can be corrected by double checking what was actually said. > > For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large > part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be > discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board > communications needs to deal with. This is a legitimate concern deserving more thought at all levels of our movement. > I would love for the board to be able to complete and approve their meeting > minutes within a few weeks. I understand why they have a hard time. > > Risker/Anne -- brion > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Risker
On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Those who think it's an easy task that should be > able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real > experience with writing and managing minutes at the international > non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important > that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an > early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 > board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and > approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not be > the most important person in the lives of any of our board members. What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)? -- brion > > Risker/Anne > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
On 3 March 2016 at 10:36, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Those who think it's an easy task that should be > > able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no > real > > experience with writing and managing minutes at the international > > non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is > important > > that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an > > early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 > > board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and > > approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not > be > > the most important person in the lives of any of our board members. > > What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead > by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff > member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather > than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)? > > -- brion > > they are required by law, they need to contain certain information, and they are binding on the organization. I do not believe you will find any major international non-profit organization (whether or not they've got strong community links, support open and free knowledge, or are just ordinary charities) that would publish drafts of their legal documents. Getting approved versions out more promptly, and in particular including more information and context for the decisions and discussion, is probably a better first objective; this should be achievable because we can find good examples from other organizations. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but there are plenty of people who will point to the public draft and insist that's the "real" information and that any subsequent modifications were made for political reasons rather than to reflect correct information. I think it's fair to say that, as of this precise moment, there's not a huge assumption of good faith directed at the board by at least some sectors of the broad community. Whether or not it is deserved, I think it reasonable to say that the Board has some work in regaining the trust of the community. I'd encourage them to start with small steps that are easily repeated and documented and don't need a lot of exceptions, so that they will be building a more solid foundation. Making major changes that, after a few months, turn out to be unsustainable, will be more harmful than helpful. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
*nod* very good points; it may be worth thinking about whether "minutes"
and "communicating a clear reference of what's going on" should be distinct issues treated separately. If we've been conflating them in out discussion that might be leading some of us down wrong paths in potential solutions. Definitely agree on not making major changes too fast. Thoughtful, deliberate changes only! -- brion On Mar 3, 2016 8:03 AM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 3 March 2016 at 10:36, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Those who think it's an easy task that should be > > > able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no > > real > > > experience with writing and managing minutes at the international > > > non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is > > important > > > that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an > > > early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are > 9 > > > board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct > and > > > approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not > > be > > > the most important person in the lives of any of our board members. > > > > What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead > > by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff > > member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it > rather > > than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)? > > > > -- brion > > > > > Well, there's the fact that board minutes are actually legal documents; > they are required by law, they need to contain certain information, and > they are binding on the organization. I do not believe you will find > any major international non-profit organization (whether or not they've got > strong community links, support open and free knowledge, or are just > ordinary charities) that would publish drafts of their legal documents. > Getting approved versions out more promptly, and in particular including > more information and context for the decisions and discussion, is probably > a better first objective; this should be achievable because we can find > good examples from other organizations. > > And, not to put too fine a point on it, but there are plenty of people who > will point to the public draft and insist that's the "real" information and > that any subsequent modifications were made for political reasons rather > than to reflect correct information. I think it's fair to say that, as of > this precise moment, there's not a huge assumption of good faith directed > at the board by at least some sectors of the broad community. Whether or > not it is deserved, I think it reasonable to say that the Board has some > work in regaining the trust of the community. I'd encourage them to start > with small steps that are easily repeated and documented and don't need a > lot of exceptions, so that they will be building a more solid foundation. > Making major changes that, after a few months, turn out to be > unsustainable, will be more harmful than helpful. > > Risker/Anne > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Risker
Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't
seen addressed: Are there notes kept during executive sessions? From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories or resolve disputes, seems important. For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording meetings, *independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more widely distributed. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-4
Speaking from my non-Wikimedia experiences with nonprofit boards, I think Risker makes some good points.
Even a very good notetaker is going to make mistakes. There are things said they accidentally didn’t hear, they misunderstood what someone was saying, or simply summarized a point using wording that doesn’t sound quite right to the person who said it. Note taking is a different skill from dictating ever word, and when a non-messenger is summarizing for messengers, things tend to need edits before they are considered “final”. However, that said, I do agree that our Board should be striving to do this faster than has been done recently. Regarding recording meetings, I have seen this tried before, and do not believe it is what we are really looking for. In reality, as Risker noted, it changes the behavior of participants - and usually not in an effective way. A lot more time is spent in meetings pondering the “right” way to say something before you say it. When it’s not being recorded, people are more inclined to offer early and incomplete thoughts. Perhaps it is good for people to pick their words more carefully first, but in my experience, usually makes the meetings less effective, and just results in a lot more “behind the scenes” dealmaking and conversations. I believe these types of meetings are most effective when they are a safe space to talk through complex problems. Additionally, I feel I should note there is a very real difference between Wikimedia Foundation and the governments we are sometimes compared to. WMF does not enjoy the same legal protections as governments do, and our movement’s or Foundation’s public meeting documentation are not free from threats of defamation/libel lawsuit threats (which Govt. meetings are free from). The end result for organizations I have seen try this is that a lot less gets said in meetings out of fear of being sued. The only way to really offset that would be to create a large legal fund to prepare, but even then, who wants to the Board member that has dipped into the legal fund half a dozen times in their terms? Also, is a legal fund defending potentially offensive things said during Board meetings the best use of our donors’ dollars? I absolutely 100% agree that work needs to be done to help both the organization and our Board rebuild trust, and some of that needs to be either putting information out in better ways, and making sure info IS out there. I also understand and have seen this particular set of ideas come up as solutions for similar problems elsewhere. However, I do feel I should point out that like some ideas that sounded good and logical on paper, when it was tried out, the results were disappointing. It is entirely possible we’ll be the exception, but I’m not personally very confident in that. As such, I think we should ponder ways to make the notes posting process better, and ways that the Board can improve communication outside of their official meetings. Plus, let’s be honest, the meetings are not where everything is happening anyway. I want to know about the whole picture, not just that part of it. -greg (User:Varnent) > On Mar 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Those who think it's an easy task that should be >> able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real >> experience with writing and managing minutes at the international >> non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it is important >> that they are correct before they're published. Publicly presenting an >> early, uncorrected draft will lead to nothing but tears, but there are 9 >> board members (plus individual presenters) who have to read, correct and >> approve [sections of] the minutes. The WMF Board is not and should not be >> the most important person in the lives of any of our board members. > > What sort of problems are envisioned from public drafting of minutes lead > by a dedicated secretary/minute-wrangler (ideally a professional staff > member with experience doing this and enough time to dedicate to it rather > than double-booking a trustee or a C-level)? > > -- brion > >> >> Risker/Anne >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: [hidden email] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
On Mar 3, 2016 8:19 AM, "Pete Forsyth" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't > seen addressed: > > Are there notes kept during executive sessions? Per the minutes policy listed on wiki yes they are kept; they are kept separate by the secretary and not published. -- Brion > > From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that > doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing > minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the > participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories or > resolve disputes, seems important. > > For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording meetings, > *independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more > widely distributed. > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative > to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This > would always be a different person, and by design it could be e.g. always a > former board/FDC member, or chapter representative, or former arbiter from > wikis that have arbiters, or a steward - anyhow, someone who is legitimized > without the need to organize yet another elections. > > To reduce costs, this person could be connecting via Hangout, but physical > presence would also be an option. We could ask this person their views, but > they would mostly be an observer. > I’d be eager to try this idea of observers/scribes from the community, with the slight amendment that I don’t think it *needs* to be a different person every time, though it should certainly be open to participation as much as possible. I’d also like for it to be open to folks from “the media” of our community, such as The Signpost. -Andrew _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I’d be eager to try this idea of observers/scribes from the community, > with the slight amendment that I don’t think it *needs* to be a different > person every time, though it should certainly be open to participation as > much as possible. I’d also like for it to be open to folks from “the media” > of our community, such as The Signpost. > > - > the reason why I think it would be good to rotate this person is that it would allow to assure not getting into the Board's logic too much. If the Board ever slides into group-think, this would be a safety valve. dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Andrew Lih
What do we want? We want to understand what board members think about major
issues, we want some sense of the direction of the organization as driven by the board, we want to be able to see and verify that issues important to stakeholders throughout the movement are being considered and addressed by the board. Videotaping or audio recording or broadcasting all board meetings may impede the necessary work of the board, and lots of reasons have been offered to support this objection. So instead - why not ask the board to hold quarterly public meetings? The WMF engages with the community through the model of public meetings all the time, and participants have been happy with the opportunity to hear staff work through issues and offer feedback. Can't we extend that template to the board, and ask the board to create some opportunities to engage either with the public or at least in public? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-4
The "minutes" released to the public are ridiculously scant. I tried to find out more last year about the board's removing the identification requirement from those the WMF grants access to the non-public information of contributors, but ran into dead-ends. The only thing I could decipher really is that boardmember Samuel Klein raised the motion to remove the requirement.
Trillium Corsage 03.03.2016, 16:22, "Brion Vibber" <email clipped>: > On Mar 3, 2016 8:19 AM, "Pete Forsyth" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't >> seen addressed: >> >> Are there notes kept during executive sessions? > > Per the minutes policy listed on wiki yes they are kept; they are kept > separate by the secretary and not published. > > -- Brion > >> From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that >> doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing >> minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the >> participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories > > or >> resolve disputes, seems important. >> >> For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording > > meetings, >> *independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more >> widely distributed. >> >> -Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] <text clipped for brevity> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On 2016-03-03 18:17, Nathan wrote:
> > > So instead - why not ask the board to hold quarterly public meetings? > The > WMF engages with the community through the model of public meetings all > the > time, and participants have been happy with the opportunity to hear > staff > work through issues and offer feedback. Can't we extend that template > to > the board, and ask the board to create some opportunities to engage > either > with the public or at least in public? We can just ask them to hold office hours, as everybody in WMF does. Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Pine W
This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board
meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and decided elsewhere. Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also from the community. What can *we* as community members do to assist the WMF in being transparent? Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings could do with a little more detail. If brevity is wit, then the existing minutes are positively Wildean. Cheers, Craig On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote: > Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be > a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency. > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen by waving a wand and have it be so. I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a different organization, and there was no way to get notes out the door with universal agreement except to redact large parts. A lot of it involved "I did not say that" or "I did not mean that" or "That's out of context". Controversial topic discussions will be even harder to cover fairly without being content-free. And, as others have said on this list, recording meetings often has the side effect of moving real discussions out of the limelight back into the shadows. If you don't believe me, check out your respective legislative bodies ;-) So, given that, as Risker and others point out, "it's complicated", perhaps we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda published within 5 days after any meeting. This would mean publishing: the items brought into the meeting for discussion, marking those that were actually discussed, and those that were dropped or alternatively held over for a future meeting. Even this document will not be controversy free and will need to be vetted before being released, but a 5 day period (let's say) seems manageable. Once we have that going smoothly we can take what's been learned from it and apply it to summaries with a bit more detail, etc. Ariel On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]> wrote: > This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board > meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and > decided elsewhere. > > Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling > a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board > of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real > solution will involve cultural change, not just on the WMF side, but also > from the community. What can *we* as community members do to assist the > WMF in being transparent? > > Although, I most certainly agree that the official minutes of meetings > could do with a little more detail. If brevity is wit, then the existing > minutes are positively Wildean. > > Cheers, > Craig > > On 3 March 2016 at 16:31, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Having WMF Board meetings be open and recorded by default would be > > a wonderful step in aligning the Board with the value of transparency. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
In reply to this post by Pine W
>.... we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda
> published within 5 days after any meeting.... "I would support as best practice the public posting of agendas for routine board meetings. I would support that minutes be posted promptly - but before the next meetings agenda is finalized is not really practical because we normally vote to approve the previous meetings minutes at the next meeting - every board I have been on does this. I would not support that unagendized items be deferred until the next meeting - we are working board and we have long board meetings and such a delay would not be helpful in any way." -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |