On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > >> To be frank, I also disagree that changing the timing would have >> improved things in any practical sense. It doesn't really obscure the >> connection much, if that's even what we would want to do. And for people >> who were worrying about the implications, I think setting things up in >> stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it look >> better. The delay simply adds the possibility of new concerns, like >> wondering what other unstated "conditions" had to be satisfied in the >> intervening time for the other part of the "deal" to go through. And it >> also encourages the idea that there must still be even more shoes to >> drop. Basically, the timing issue would just become more raw material >> for people inclined to engage in speculation. > > It could have been positive, actually. There will be some people who will be > unconvinced entirely regardless of whatever the board says, and however long > they delay. For them, the fact that it was an "outsider with money" taints > the seat. Not really anything you can do about that. But it might have given > some sort of separation between those simply speculating or worrying about > the implications and perception issue vis-a-vis those who firmly hold the > belief that the seat was bought no matter what you say. And I'm not sure I > agree that it would have created any more speculation during the intervening > period than there was from the immediate announcement. > > But then again, now I'm speculating too, so I think my intrusion into this > thread has run its course. > > -Dan
As I recall, we made an explicit decision not to separate the announcement of the grant and of the seat--mainly so it wouldn't appear we were trying to hide anything. To me it seemed more important that we try very hard not to appear to be hiding anything. It also wasn't an easy decision to make. The question came down to this one: do we necessarily refuse someone as a candidate solely because they were proposed by a funder? There were a few main factors that applied. One is that we did not yet have a candidate identified for that appointed seat--the nominating committee had some names listed, but no one who had been seriously pursued; partially this was because we were looking for someone who had experience that was different from ours; anytime we're seeking someone with qualities we don't already have represented, we have to reach further outside our usual network. For another, we hadn't seriously considered the question. We've refused people who've asked for board seats in return for their donations, and in those cases it was a much easier decision--the offers were not made by people who would have been on a short list if there were no money involved. And no other serious candidate had ever also been a major donor. I was unhappy to have to consider the question of whether to offer the seat knowing that it was in connection with the grant; it's not really possible to make an unbiased decision that way. (It's much better to have a policy in place for situations before you need them, but sometimes you're not certain that you need such a policy until the situation comes up!) The money was not dependent on our accepting Matt as a board member, but of course it would have been strange to explain to a funder we had a good relationship with--yes, we were missing those qualities on the board and actively looking for them; no, there's nothing wrong with him; no, we didn't promise the seat to someone else. It would have been much easier if there had been some obvious reason to refuse, but there wasn't. And had he already been on the nominating committee's list there would have been no real hesitation to accept. So it was a difficult and tense decision. The thing I most regret is that there is no way to convincingly show that we don't simply sell seats to the highest bidder, that we did in fact try to make the decision as independent of the financial considerations as possible. I wish we'd explicitly had the conversation beforehand about what to do if someone offered, so that we would not have had to consider the question at the same time as we were considering an individual situation, that we could have had something clearly and publicly stated that we could point to, showing how we would make such decisions when it was appropriate. Ultimately I think that we did make the right choice. Several of the board met with him beforehand to see if he would really be a good fit for us, and I'm happy to say that it's worked out well. Matt's knowledge of governance and philanthropy, his connections to other people working in the nonprofit space who've been able to help us, his outside perspective, and his own commitment to improving the world have made him an asset to Wikimedia; he is now with a different company but we continue to benefit from his expertise. -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: k...@wikimedia.org * Personal: k...@mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l