[Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

Nataliia Tymkiv
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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: [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

Lodewijk
Hi Nataliia,

It would have been nice if you could have shared this a bit earlier, given
that apparently the board meeting is next week. This gives little time for
discussion of your proposal, on a topic that has received wide interest
previously. Perhaps that could be considered a point for improvement,
especially on these non-urgent reform topics. That gives you more time to
incorporate the feedback into your proposal.

I destilled a few different topics from your email:
1) Better onboarding processes
- sounds great to me. Please feel free to invite community members in
setting up such processes as well. I understood that something like that
was aimed to happen at past Wikimania, and that sounds like a good move!
Getting a clear 'synopsis' would probably also help, something that can
serve as a reference point to make sure that nothing is missing. I would
also advise the method I have seen some WMF employees use (but this may be
more time consuming), and that is to have the new board members do some
'interviews' or in general structured conversations with community members,
staff members and other stakeholders during their first months. Wikimania
is a great opportunity for that.

2) Changing the 'entry point' for appointed board members from January to
Wikimania
- May be sensible or not. The upside is that more things happen at once,
which means less repetition. The downside is that everything happens.. at
once. You'll have potentially a board meeting where 40% is brand new.
That's a lot. I don't have a strong preference either way, but whatever you
choose, I think it'd be good to introduce an observer status for upcoming
board members in the months leading up to their formal appointment - if
that doesn't exist yet - especially for people with less of a Wikimedia
background. You could use the January-Wikimania gap for that.

3) you propose longer terms
- 3 year terms are already quite long in my opinion. Continuity can happen
in two ways: because you force it to happen (i.e. by longer terms), or
because people get re-appointed/re-selected. In the past years there was a
lot of turnover in the community and chapter seats because the latter did
not happen: board members were not re-selected. There is probably some
relationship with how the board performance was appreciated by the
electorate. And one could argue that in such a case, it might maybe be
better to not force more continuity - because it also results in less
opportunity to improve the board when there's an observed need for that. In
this light, I would definitely not be in favour for lengthening the term
lengths other that the occasional 6 months to make entry points fit
together better.

I hope this caught the changes you're proposing? Please correct me if I
missed something.

Thanks for sharing though, and I hope that you'll engage in a constructive
discussion despite the short time left before the board meeting :)

Best,
Lodewijk



2016-11-05 13:07 GMT+01:00 Nataliia Tymkiv <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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>
_______________________________________________
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>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

Anders Wennersten-2
My experience from following the board of WMSE several years, and where
we now have two years terms is

First year is a learning phase where you more listen then participate

Second year most get more involved and find it very stimulated to be in
the Board

Third year some get very active, while others are active on the lower
level as in year two

Fourth year, some continue being active, while others get more passive,
and also less stimulated

This experience support your proposal to go for a three year term

Anders


Den 2016-11-05 kl. 14:11, skrev Lodewijk:

> Hi Nataliia,
>
> It would have been nice if you could have shared this a bit earlier, given
> that apparently the board meeting is next week. This gives little time for
> discussion of your proposal, on a topic that has received wide interest
> previously. Perhaps that could be considered a point for improvement,
> especially on these non-urgent reform topics. That gives you more time to
> incorporate the feedback into your proposal.
>
> I destilled a few different topics from your email:
> 1) Better onboarding processes
> - sounds great to me. Please feel free to invite community members in
> setting up such processes as well. I understood that something like that
> was aimed to happen at past Wikimania, and that sounds like a good move!
> Getting a clear 'synopsis' would probably also help, something that can
> serve as a reference point to make sure that nothing is missing. I would
> also advise the method I have seen some WMF employees use (but this may be
> more time consuming), and that is to have the new board members do some
> 'interviews' or in general structured conversations with community members,
> staff members and other stakeholders during their first months. Wikimania
> is a great opportunity for that.
>
> 2) Changing the 'entry point' for appointed board members from January to
> Wikimania
> - May be sensible or not. The upside is that more things happen at once,
> which means less repetition. The downside is that everything happens.. at
> once. You'll have potentially a board meeting where 40% is brand new.
> That's a lot. I don't have a strong preference either way, but whatever you
> choose, I think it'd be good to introduce an observer status for upcoming
> board members in the months leading up to their formal appointment - if
> that doesn't exist yet - especially for people with less of a Wikimedia
> background. You could use the January-Wikimania gap for that.
>
> 3) you propose longer terms
> - 3 year terms are already quite long in my opinion. Continuity can happen
> in two ways: because you force it to happen (i.e. by longer terms), or
> because people get re-appointed/re-selected. In the past years there was a
> lot of turnover in the community and chapter seats because the latter did
> not happen: board members were not re-selected. There is probably some
> relationship with how the board performance was appreciated by the
> electorate. And one could argue that in such a case, it might maybe be
> better to not force more continuity - because it also results in less
> opportunity to improve the board when there's an observed need for that. In
> this light, I would definitely not be in favour for lengthening the term
> lengths other that the occasional 6 months to make entry points fit
> together better.
>
> I hope this caught the changes you're proposing? Please correct me if I
> missed something.
>
> Thanks for sharing though, and I hope that you'll engage in a constructive
> discussion despite the short time left before the board meeting :)
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
> 2016-11-05 13:07 GMT+01:00 Nataliia Tymkiv <[hidden email]>:
>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>>> 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: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> ,
>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

jmh649
In reply to this post by Nataliia Tymkiv
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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>




--
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
+1 to what Lodewijk, Anders, and James wrote.

I see benefits in onboarding around Wikimania, and having a system in which
each year we add three people (one year from the community, one from
chapters, one from experts).

However, I don't see it as an argument to extend the terms for current
trustees for a transition period.

There should be some limit (6 years now), and also reappointments in the
case of experts should be based both on the organizational needs, the level
of expertise offered, and the energy and value added - just as Anders
mentioned, these are not always given and stable.

You wrote that " in case this extension is too much to ask from the current
trustees, I'd rather leave the seats vacant."

I personally would rather fill the currently empty expert seat in January,
at the same time that the remaining  two seats are open for
(re/)appointment and set their term till Wikimania 2018.l, so that it
clicks perfectly with the desires calendar.

1.5 year is a short but manageable term, that for new people will also
offer us some ability to check them out, and for veterans will not as much
strain as a full term.

Yes, we will have a lot of onboarding  (twice in a year in 2017), but it is
still better than potentially onboarding 6 entirely new people at the same
time; part of continuity is avoiding total revamping (if terms were
extended by half a year), and better than extending by a really long period
of 1.5 years.

Best

Dj "pundit"

On Nov 5, 2016 14:12, "Lodewijk" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Nataliia,
>
> It would have been nice if you could have shared this a bit earlier, given
> that apparently the board meeting is next week. This gives little time for
> discussion of your proposal, on a topic that has received wide interest
> previously. Perhaps that could be considered a point for improvement,
> especially on these non-urgent reform topics. That gives you more time to
> incorporate the feedback into your proposal.
>
> I destilled a few different topics from your email:
> 1) Better onboarding processes
> - sounds great to me. Please feel free to invite community members in
> setting up such processes as well. I understood that something like that
> was aimed to happen at past Wikimania, and that sounds like a good move!
> Getting a clear 'synopsis' would probably also help, something that can
> serve as a reference point to make sure that nothing is missing. I would
> also advise the method I have seen some WMF employees use (but this may be
> more time consuming), and that is to have the new board members do some
> 'interviews' or in general structured conversations with community members,
> staff members and other stakeholders during their first months. Wikimania
> is a great opportunity for that.
>
> 2) Changing the 'entry point' for appointed board members from January to
> Wikimania
> - May be sensible or not. The upside is that more things happen at once,
> which means less repetition. The downside is that everything happens.. at
> once. You'll have potentially a board meeting where 40% is brand new.
> That's a lot. I don't have a strong preference either way, but whatever you
> choose, I think it'd be good to introduce an observer status for upcoming
> board members in the months leading up to their formal appointment - if
> that doesn't exist yet - especially for people with less of a Wikimedia
> background. You could use the January-Wikimania gap for that.
>
> 3) you propose longer terms
> - 3 year terms are already quite long in my opinion. Continuity can happen
> in two ways: because you force it to happen (i.e. by longer terms), or
> because people get re-appointed/re-selected. In the past years there was a
> lot of turnover in the community and chapter seats because the latter did
> not happen: board members were not re-selected. There is probably some
> relationship with how the board performance was appreciated by the
> electorate. And one could argue that in such a case, it might maybe be
> better to not force more continuity - because it also results in less
> opportunity to improve the board when there's an observed need for that. In
> this light, I would definitely not be in favour for lengthening the term
> lengths other that the occasional 6 months to make entry points fit
> together better.
>
> I hope this caught the changes you're proposing? Please correct me if I
> missed something.
>
> Thanks for sharing though, and I hope that you'll engage in a constructive
> discussion despite the short time left before the board meeting :)
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
>
>
> 2016-11-05 13:07 GMT+01:00 Nataliia Tymkiv <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

Nataliia Tymkiv
In reply to this post by jmh649
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: [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>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

jmh649
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > ,
> > > > >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: [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>
>



--
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

Chris Keating-2
 I think I agree with Dariusz's proposed solution.

I also hope that several of Dariusz, Maria, Alice and Guy are willing /
able to be re-appointed or re-elected - the easiest solution to Board
stability is people getting second terms on the Board.

Chris

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 2:31 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > > > ,
> > > > > >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [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>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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: [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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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: [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>