What he said :) Seddon
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > > > It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as > > problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good > > board member. That seems contradictory to me. > > I'm not sure it is. I think what Joseph is saying is that Matt is a good > board member in that he is a qualified candidate, he is obviously suitable > to handle the pressures of the board, he brings knowledge, expertise, > contacts etc. In terms of qualifications, he is a very good candidate. > However based on the timing and the perception of quid pro quo, that does > not equate to him being a problem-free board member, or even a good choice. > In a grossly exaggerated example to show where I think the difference in > the two aspects above lies, pretend it wasn't Matt, but it was say, Steve > Jobs. Certainly, Steve's got a great many qualities that would serve the > board well. But his appointment would create an instant perception that the > board is no longer independent and is subject to the influences of outside > entities, whether they be private, public, corporate, financial, whatever. > When that is combined with the timing of the grant, it makes that perception > that much stronger. > > (Again, not saying that is my belief, just trying to interpret what I've > heard others say. I've not met Matt nor do I know much about him or Omidyar) > > To clarify, what would have happened if the WMF had not received a grant > from Omidyar, but still put Matt on the board? Well, there would have been > no outcry that the seat was bought, because no money = no purchase. Matt > would still be a good board member in all the areas noted above (expertise, > contacts, etc.) But in this case, a lack of a contemporaneous large grant > means that Matt is much more visibly there on his own merits. Again, I > don't think anyone is saying he lacks those merits anyway, just that they > get lost among the clutter of alternative "explanations" for why he was > appointed. > > The lesson to be learned from this, I guess, is that even if you have a > good process and a good outcome, sometimes the community doesn't necessarily > see it that way, and a greater deal of proactive engagement could be helpful > in those cases. Less abstractly, I remember there being some talk on this > list about the seat and donations at the time Matt's appointment was first > announced, but what I don't remember (please correct me if I'm wrong on > this) is the WMF publicly addressing community concerns about the grant > timing beyond "no, the seat wasn't bought." As a result, it's now June 2011 > and the topic is reoccurring. Broadly speaking this is something that we > need to work on. BLPs, harassment of editors, both things that the WMF > itself is now beginning to fully engage on, but the community has been > discussing for years looking for some sort of acknowledgement. > > Of course, if I'm misinterpreting what Seddon is saying, you can disregard > all of the above. > > -Dan > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l