On 23 June 2011 13:59, 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.
Right, but the board did not appoint Steve Jobs. If the board had appointed Steve Jobs, then people might have reasonably said 'hey, there are problems with this: was the right decision made here?' But that's not what happened. I am still confused by the argument here. * I agree that there are people who shouldn't be put on the board. * I agree that money is a complicating factor. Money is good: it enables us to do important work. And yet it can also be a negative influence, if we allow it to persuade us to do things that we shouldn't do. * But in this instance, we did not do anything we shouldn't have, and we got both a chunk of money and a great new board member. That is a win all round. > 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. Yeah, I dunno. What I see happening here is this: the Board weighed a bunch of pros and cons, and ended up making exactly the right decision. Even with the advantage of hindsight, I don't hear anybody arguing that the wrong decision was made. So I continue, I guess, to fail to understand what went wrong here. Maybe there are people who feel like money is inherently corrupting, and that the Board should bar from consideration anyone who has donated (although I have not heard that argument, I can imagine in theory that someone could make it). And maybe there are people who feel like they would like to have a better understanding of how the board arrived at this decision, in which case they could presumably just ask the board members to talk about it :-) I need to run: I'm going into a conference call :-) Thanks, Sue _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
