Briefly:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hi SJ,
>
> to boldly push my question again: do I understand from this correctly there
> was at this instance (in your opinion) no urgency
There is always some urgency to fix problems once a fix is identified - for
instance, it was good
Hi SJ,
to boldly push my question again: do I understand from this correctly there
was at this instance (in your opinion) no urgency that would validate the
chosen procedure? I know you seem to be in favor of this change as much as
I am, but I'm simply trying to understand if there are situations
Risker, 06/11/2012 09:40:
On 6 November 2012 03:07, Florence Devouard wrote:
Errr. No. At least historically, this is incorrect.
Michael Davis was the first treasurer of the board (appointed by Jimbo at
the beginning of the WMF). After some time, Michael announced his desire to
quit the board
Risker, 06/11/2012 03:26:
On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg wrote:
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
[snp]
Somewhere in 500,000 bytes, do you
really think there was any likelihood that there would have been anything
posted that would have improved this housekeeping chang
On 6 November 2012 03:07, Florence Devouard wrote:
> On 11/6/12 3:26 AM, Risker wrote:
>
>> On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>> Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
>>>
>>> This resolution does change the composition of the board.
>>>
>>> Two seats had a defined role, with c
On 11/6/12 3:26 AM, Risker wrote:
On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg wrote:
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
This resolution does change the composition of the board.
Two seats had a defined role, with clear responsibilities. Now they dont.
Of course there is always shared respon
Risker is right. This mainly reflects long-standing reality in a more
transparent way, and is an exercise in more effective delegation. A few
years back the staff liaison to the Board (James) took many of the notes at
meetings, which was helpful; since then the Secretary has done much of that
dir
On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
>
> This resolution does change the composition of the board.
>
> Two seats had a defined role, with clear responsibilities. Now they dont.
> Of course there is always shared responsibility, but having one pe
Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.
This resolution does change the composition of the board.
Two seats had a defined role, with clear responsibilities. Now they dont.
Of course there is always shared responsibility, but having one person
chiefly responsible ensures someone is focused on those
Being responsible for something doesn't you're the one that actually does
it.
On Nov 6, 2012 12:30 AM, "Risker" wrote:
> Well, that's the point. Phoebe *was* responsible for this, just as Bishakha
> has been so far this year. Who's been sending out the minutes and posting
> resolutions?
>
> Furt
Well, that's the point. Phoebe *was* responsible for this, just as Bishakha
has been so far this year. Who's been sending out the minutes and posting
resolutions?
Further, it's to improve compliance with legislation. Thus, it's
housekeeping.
Risker
On 5 November 2012 19:04, Thomas Dalton wrote
I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary actually took minutes...
That would usually be delegated...
On Nov 6, 2012 12:02 AM, "Risker" wrote:
> It would strike me that one of the "urgencies" that might be involved is
> the fact that this resolution was passed so that the Board member wh
It would strike me that one of the "urgencies" that might be involved is
the fact that this resolution was passed so that the Board member who had
previously been the secretary could participate as an individual board
member, and the appointed secretary could take the minutes. It's extremely
rare f
(just for the record: in case someone does have a valid reason, I'm still
very open to hearing good reasons why the board chose the procedure they
chose (behind closed doors), and whether there was any urgency to the
changes proposed. I somehow missed that in the replies but may have missed
it. Kno
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> I agree that this needs improvement, but I think we must also allow for the
> possibility that not pro-actively providing a document does not necessarily
> translate into an intention to hide something.
>
> I find this underlying layer of imp
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Thehelpfulone
wrote:
>
> Thus, in the future (this is for both Board members and WMF staff) it would
> be much better, when announcing *any* potentially controversial changes
> like this to *proactively* provide such documents, than potentially give
> the impressio
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Bishakha Datta, 02/11/2012 17:08:
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
>>
>> This doesn't seem too unreasonable in itself, but it is somewhat
>>> surprising
>>> that you didn't readjust the board's composition acco
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:46 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> My apologies. I read your previous suggestion during the travel guide
> discussion and the only real route for communicating with a Board member to
> solicit a proposal seemed to me to be private user-to-user e-mail. Are
> there
> other (a)venu
Bishakha Datta, 02/11/2012 17:08:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
This doesn't seem too unreasonable in itself, but it is somewhat surprising
that you didn't readjust the board's composition accordingly. The
justification for having unelected seats is to ensure that the bo
Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> In the past, Sam has said that private solicitation of Board members to
>> introduce a resolution was the best approach.
>
> *Public* solicitation, actually. I can't think of any reason to privately
> solicit individual Boa
On 11/2/2012 2:17 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
How about a Board board? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/BN
If bored, go aboard Board board?
-- phoebe, who some days just cannot help it.
You should be bored full of holes for that. Or boarded up
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> How about a Board board? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/BN
If bored, go aboard Board board?
-- phoebe, who some days just cannot help it.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Phoebe writes:
> > * a formal Board resolution that states the procedure for bylaws
> > changes (mirroring the other procedural resolutions, such as voting
> > transparency and deliberation rules).
>
+1. We have a procedure, it's just not a go
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:25:59 -0400, Nathan wrote:
While I'm sure most readers understand these principles well already,
they are worth restating: the Foundation is not a wiki. It is not
purely a democracy. Greater democracy has not, to my knowledge, been
shown to correspond with greater effectiven
While I'm sure most readers understand these principles well already,
they are worth restating: the Foundation is not a wiki. It is not
purely a democracy. Greater democracy has not, to my knowledge, been
shown to correspond with greater effectiveness in non-profit
management. The WMF is not a memb
Hi Phoebe,
thank you for your thoughts. I must admit that I don't remember these
discussions and yes, I understand the frustration even more with this
background. Like Bishakha and Sam I will support to publish as much
information as possible before our meetings. I agree that this issue
would have
phoebe ayers wrote:
> Regardless, in the spirit of being constructive, I propose (as a
> community member) two changes to the Board and community at large:
> * a formal Board resolution that states the procedure for bylaws
> changes (mirroring the other procedural resolutions, such as voting
> tran
Hi Phoebe,
thanks a lot for the history :) I indeed remember this discussion. I also
remember having this discussion even before that (I believe with Florence
who was chair at the time, but I'm not sure) and indeed thought to
recollect that it was generally agreed upon to do this differently in th
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
>
> I don't see how this validates the fact that you did not consult the
> community on these changes. If the changes are fairly trivial and
> legalistic, then the community will likely have little objection. But as
> you noted, there was at least
On 2 November 2012 16:06, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> Ok, I've added a reference link into the resolution at:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Amended_Bylaws
>
> Please go through this to compare old and revised versions of the bylaws;
> since there are many small changes, I have uplo
It's a good idea to make prep materials available a week in advance, to the
community as to the board.
Exceptions can be made for any materials that are sensitive in nature.
I can think of only one or two examples from the past few meetings. Much
of the material is published afterwards anyway.
O
Hi Bishakha,
2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lodewijk >wrote:
>
> > Dear Bishakha,
> >
> > could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a secretive
> > amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed amendments
> with
> > the community and asking
On Nov 2, 2012 3:07 PM, "Bishakha Datta" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> >
> > The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
> > responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be
delegated to
> > staff, it is still the job of the boa
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Bence Damokos wrote:
> Hi Bishakha,
>
> In my opinion, given the generally curious nature of our movement, it might
> be a good idea to make more preparatory material for the board meetings
> available publicly in advance.
> Not necessarily as a way to allow comme
Hi Bishakha,
In my opinion, given the generally curious nature of our movement, it might
be a good idea to make more preparatory material for the board meetings
available publicly in advance.
Not necessarily as a way to allow comments or input, but as a matter of
transparency. Especially for propo
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Dear Bishakha,
>
> could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a secretive
> amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed amendments with
> the community and asking their input on it? Especially where it concerns
> such no
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Bishakha Datta >wrote:
>
> > Please note the substantive change in Article V: Officers and Duties. As
> > per the amendments, the Secretary and Treasurer are now non-trustee
> officer
> > positions.
> >
>
> Th
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> After the fact, I'd appreciate a readable resolution or diff as both
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Amended_Bylaws and <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws&diff=84853&oldid=84852>
> are useless
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
> Please note the substantive change in Article V: Officers and Duties. As
> per the amendments, the Secretary and Treasurer are now non-trustee officer
> positions.
>
This doesn't seem too unreasonable in itself, but it is somewhat surprising
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
> responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be delegated to
> staff, it is still the job of the board to ensure that everything is done
> correctly. How does the
Dear Bishakha,
please take your time - at this point there is no need to hurry since the
board meeting has already finished anyway.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta
> Dear Thomas, Lodewijk and others,
>
> I will reply to this thread once I finish the work meeting at which I am
>
Dear Thomas, Lodewijk and others,
I will reply to this thread once I finish the work meeting at which I am
currently.
Best
Bishakha
On Nov 2, 2012 5:26 PM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote:
> Bishaka,
>
> Seeing as there was no public discussion of these amendments, to my
> knowledge, can you at least exp
Bishaka,
Seeing as there was no public discussion of these amendments, to my
knowledge, can you at least explain them now?
The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be delegated to
staff, it is still the job of the bo
Dear Bishakha,
could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a secretive
amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed amendments with
the community and asking their input on it? Especially where it concerns
such non-trivial changes.
I hope that also other board members wil
Just reiterating for the n-th time on this list that people would
appreciate if you publicly shared draft bylaws amendments before
approving them.
The consistent lack of transparency in such fundamental decisions within
the WMF is always astonishing.
After the fact, I'd appreciate a readable r
Dear all,
At its in-person meeting of 26 October, the Board of Trustees also approved
the two following resolutions:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Amended_Bylaws
This resolution approved the revised and amended Foundation bylaws. The
updated Bylaws are being adopted to ensure the
46 matches
Mail list logo
