Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[James Alexander]

I'm currently the one in charge of coordinating (on the staff side) the
Standing Elections Committee (Greg resigned from the committee when he
became a communications department contractor and I'm not sure why you
pinged Lane, I assume because of the Affiliate Appointments process but
that is not related to the board elections committee).

*As an update on the committee*: I'm hoping to get the standing committee
fully up and running before Wikimania. It was delayed given the multitude
of other issues recently (for example the resolution actually required us
to have the ED taking part and the last time I had a fully breathing moment
to start the process we didn't...) but once WikiCon is over we should be
able to get that process up and running. We've already started polling the
members of the last committee to see if they'd be willing to serve as
starting members and will be having an internal meeting right after WikiCon
to ensure we do everything right (parts of it can happen very quickly,
parts of it will take some time simply because of volunteer schedules etc).

*Regarding your proposal:* Unfortunately I'm not sure that's within
the committee's
remit from the board
 at
this point and so I'm not sure it will be high on their initial list. That
said I would be, at most, an advisor and not a member of either the
Election Committee or the Board Governance Committee which oversees them so
would wish to speak fully for what they would do in the end :). Also one of
their duties is *"As needed, the Committee may assist with other duties as
may be assigned by the Board or the Board Governance Committee." *so
anything is possible :).

James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I like the idea of a boot camp or orientation for board members, which
> could be applicable to both affiliate and WMF boards. I believe that the
> standing Elections Committee, once it is operational, has plans to work on
> this, along with cultivating a list of good candidates for affiliate and
> WMF boards.
>
> Greg or Lane, are you able to comment on this?
>
> It would also be nice to get an update on the formation of the standing
> Elections Committee.
>
> Pine
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, phoebe ayers 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating
> >  wrote:
> > > If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than
> conflict
> > of
> > > interest:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> > > appropriate to
> > >> pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> > but
> > >> it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> > >>
> > >
> > > E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light
> > that
> > > he was a board member.
> >
> > While I'm not sure exactly what Denny meant in his mail, I think
> > Chris' comment is spot on -- every trustee, especially those used to
> > weighing in on community discussions, feels somewhat limited in what
> > they can say and how to say it when they join the board, whether
> > that's proposing a new idea or weighing in on an existing one. (Then,
> > of course, you also get criticized for not speaking up enough!) It can
> > be an awkward balancing act that takes some time to learn, and can
> > indeed be frustrating.
> >
> > Partly I think it's simply inherently difficult. As a trustee your own
> > interests and areas of volunteering are often not what's best for the
> > WMF overall to focus on -- either because they are too narrow, or too
> > resource intensive, or a host of other reasons -- not least because
> > one contributor cannot possibly speak for a whole area of the
> > movement, and as a movement we value consensus and broad input for
> > every idea. But I also think we're not very good on the board at
> > utilizing people's individual strengths and recognizing that the very
> > reasons why someone is interesting as a trustee (because they are an
> > expert contributor in some area, as all the trustees are) also means
> > that they likely have biases and opinions about strategic directions,
> > and could use those opinions productively to help the organization
> > learn and grow.
> >
> > As for what we can learn from this situation, I'm intrigued by this
> > proposal:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Atsme  wrote:
> > > Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings
> > waiting to fill vacancies.  It’s a win-win.
> >
> > We could certainly vote in alternates; it would be as simple as taking
> > the 4th place winner.
> > Also, we do have a mechanism set up for observers at the board
> > meetings, and have not taken advantage of it recently; 1 or 2
> > community observers could 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Pine W]

I like the idea of a boot camp or orientation for board members, which
could be applicable to both affiliate and WMF boards. I believe that the
standing Elections Committee, once it is operational, has plans to work on
this, along with cultivating a list of good candidates for affiliate and
WMF boards.

Greg or Lane, are you able to comment on this?

It would also be nice to get an update on the formation of the standing
Elections Committee.

Pine

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating
>  wrote:
> > If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than conflict
> of
> > interest:
> >
> >>
> >> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> > appropriate to
> >> pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but
> >> it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >>
> >
> > E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light
> that
> > he was a board member.
>
> While I'm not sure exactly what Denny meant in his mail, I think
> Chris' comment is spot on -- every trustee, especially those used to
> weighing in on community discussions, feels somewhat limited in what
> they can say and how to say it when they join the board, whether
> that's proposing a new idea or weighing in on an existing one. (Then,
> of course, you also get criticized for not speaking up enough!) It can
> be an awkward balancing act that takes some time to learn, and can
> indeed be frustrating.
>
> Partly I think it's simply inherently difficult. As a trustee your own
> interests and areas of volunteering are often not what's best for the
> WMF overall to focus on -- either because they are too narrow, or too
> resource intensive, or a host of other reasons -- not least because
> one contributor cannot possibly speak for a whole area of the
> movement, and as a movement we value consensus and broad input for
> every idea. But I also think we're not very good on the board at
> utilizing people's individual strengths and recognizing that the very
> reasons why someone is interesting as a trustee (because they are an
> expert contributor in some area, as all the trustees are) also means
> that they likely have biases and opinions about strategic directions,
> and could use those opinions productively to help the organization
> learn and grow.
>
> As for what we can learn from this situation, I'm intrigued by this
> proposal:
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Atsme  wrote:
> > Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings
> waiting to fill vacancies.  It’s a win-win.
>
> We could certainly vote in alternates; it would be as simple as taking
> the 4th place winner.
> Also, we do have a mechanism set up for observers at the board
> meetings, and have not taken advantage of it recently; 1 or 2
> community observers could join.
> Another idea: what about field training of some sort for candidates or
> those considering candidacy? It's a big commitment that people make
> and that the movement makes to those people, and having a week or two
> immersion and preparation -- it could be done virtually -- wouldn't be
> the worst thing. Board boot camp, if you will.
>
> Phoebe
>
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
>  gmail.com *
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[phoebe ayers]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating
 wrote:
> If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than conflict of
> interest:
>
>>
>> I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate to
>> pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice, but
>> it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
>>
>
> E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light that
> he was a board member.

While I'm not sure exactly what Denny meant in his mail, I think
Chris' comment is spot on -- every trustee, especially those used to
weighing in on community discussions, feels somewhat limited in what
they can say and how to say it when they join the board, whether
that's proposing a new idea or weighing in on an existing one. (Then,
of course, you also get criticized for not speaking up enough!) It can
be an awkward balancing act that takes some time to learn, and can
indeed be frustrating.

Partly I think it's simply inherently difficult. As a trustee your own
interests and areas of volunteering are often not what's best for the
WMF overall to focus on -- either because they are too narrow, or too
resource intensive, or a host of other reasons -- not least because
one contributor cannot possibly speak for a whole area of the
movement, and as a movement we value consensus and broad input for
every idea. But I also think we're not very good on the board at
utilizing people's individual strengths and recognizing that the very
reasons why someone is interesting as a trustee (because they are an
expert contributor in some area, as all the trustees are) also means
that they likely have biases and opinions about strategic directions,
and could use those opinions productively to help the organization
learn and grow.

As for what we can learn from this situation, I'm intrigued by this proposal:

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Atsme  wrote:
> Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings waiting 
> to fill vacancies.  It’s a win-win.

We could certainly vote in alternates; it would be as simple as taking
the 4th place winner.
Also, we do have a mechanism set up for observers at the board
meetings, and have not taken advantage of it recently; 1 or 2
community observers could join.
Another idea: what about field training of some sort for candidates or
those considering candidacy? It's a big commitment that people make
and that the movement makes to those people, and having a week or two
immersion and preparation -- it could be done virtually -- wouldn't be
the worst thing. Board boot camp, if you will.

Phoebe


-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
 gmail.com *

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Dan Garry]

On 11 April 2016 at 13:29, Chris Keating  wrote:
>
> > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate to
> > pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> but
> > it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >
>
> E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light that
> he was a board member.
>

I've found this frustrating myself, at times. For example, I've avoided
commenting in my volunteer capacity on VisualEditor and Flow
related-threads because of how it may be perceived to have staff commenting
on such topics, in spite of the fact that I have never worked on
VisualEditor or Flow in my time at the Wikimedia Foundation.

I don't know what the best course of action to resolve these issues is, but
I am interested in such discussions.

Thanks,
Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[jytdog]

Dealing with COI is more than just declaring it.  It also needs to be
managed.  Denny's COI issues were apparently somewhat self-managed to a
certain extent, but please pay mind to this part of what he wrote:

I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate to
pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice, but
it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.

It was apparently in this conversation that a plan to manage Denny's COI
was laid out.  Apparently after he joined the board.  And apparently not
something that he was at all happy with.

Denny also talked about catching lots of flack due to his ties to Google.
Publishing a COI management plan would help allay those concerns. (Not put
them totally away, but at least provide some comfort to those who are
concerned that the board is aware of the COI and is managing it)

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Any COI generates burocracy. After or before.
>
> Doing it before helps to avoid empty seats.
>
> In an election is the same community to check it. If there is an
> appointment, there is not a preliminary extensive check. A potential COI is
> revealed after the appointment.
> Il 09 Apr 2016 12:15, "Gerard Meijssen"  ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of
> > interest?
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
> >
> > > What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be
> > > sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
> > > committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate
> the
> > > candidacy and to manage them better.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" 
> > ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
> > > mail
> > > > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> > > > resign the only reasonable way forward
> > > >
> > > > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board
> > within
> > > a
> > > > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a
> > snap
> > > > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
> > > look
> > > > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in
> the
> > > > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> > > > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
> > > >
> > > > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> > > > ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
> > > > consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
> > > > strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
> > > > influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
> > > that
> > > > he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board
> > > work.
> > > >
> > > > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not
> necessary
> > > > the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description
> > of
> > > > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> > > > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
> > > (lightweight)
> > > > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
> > > this
> > > > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should
> > for
> > > > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> > > > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by
> > each
> > > > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the
> > requirement
> > > > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and
> > priority
> > > > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
> > > candidate
> > > > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board
> > criteria)
> > > > had helped?
> > > >
> > > > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but
> it
> > > > will probably still be some month before it is established. Any
> changes
> > > in
> > > > the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a
> > > > discussion of learnings can start independently.
> > > >
> > > > Anders
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Ilario Valdelli]

Any COI generates burocracy. After or before.

Doing it before helps to avoid empty seats.

In an election is the same community to check it. If there is an
appointment, there is not a preliminary extensive check. A potential COI is
revealed after the appointment.
Il 09 Apr 2016 12:15, "Gerard Meijssen"  ha
scritto:

> Hoi,
> Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of
> interest?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
>
> > What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be
> > sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
> > committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the
> > candidacy and to manage them better.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" 
> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
> > mail
> > > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> > > resign the only reasonable way forward
> > >
> > > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board
> within
> > a
> > > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a
> snap
> > > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
> > look
> > > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> > > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> > > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
> > >
> > > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> > > ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
> > > consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
> > > strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
> > > influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
> > that
> > > he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board
> > work.
> > >
> > > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> > > the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description
> of
> > > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> > > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
> > (lightweight)
> > > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
> > this
> > > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should
> for
> > > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> > > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by
> each
> > > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the
> requirement
> > > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and
> priority
> > > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
> > candidate
> > > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board
> criteria)
> > > had helped?
> > >
> > > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> > > will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes
> > in
> > > the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a
> > > discussion of learnings can start independently.
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Andy Mabbett]

On 11 April 2016 at 14:03, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> The election does not elect members of the Board, and I have not written
> that

Firstly, please don't top-post.

> The election does, though, elect candidates to be considered by the Board
> for appointment to the Board

That's not an election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election

   An election is a formal decision-making process by which a
population chooses an individual to hold public office

> The three members in the Board are not community elected (and I have never
> written that), but they are selected from the community and I call them
> being community selected (but perhaps it is bad English)

"community selected" means "selected *by* the community ", not "from" it.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Anders Wennersten]

The election does not elect members of the Board, and I have not written 
that


The election does, though, elect candidates to be considered by the 
Board for appointment to the Board


The three members in the Board are not community elected (and I have 
never written that), but they are selected from the community and I call 
them being community selected (but perhaps it is bad English)


Anders

Den 2016-04-11 kl. 13:13, skrev Andy Mabbett:

On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten  wrote:


this is the second community selected

ITYM "community suggested". The selection is done by the board.


that has left the Board within a year
after being appointed, and before any future election

There are no elections.




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Andy Mabbett]

On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> this is the second community selected

ITYM "community suggested". The selection is done by the board.

> that has left the Board within a year
> after being appointed, and before any future election

There are no elections.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Atsme]

Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings waiting to 
fill vacancies.  It’s a win-win.

Betty  (Atsme)


> On Apr 10, 2016, at 4:02 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> 
> Two community elected members every 1.5 years would be a good. Three could
> than be elected if someone steps down.
> 
> James
> 
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
>> I forgot to add that one of the benefits of having elections scheduled
>> every year is that if a community-elected member departs from the board in
>> the first year of their term, then it's simple to have another seat elected
>> in the next cycle to fill the remainder of that term..
>> 
>> Pine
>> 
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including
>>> about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process.
>>> 
>>> Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to
>>> another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4
>>> community-elected seats every year with 2 seats elected each year for 2
>>> year terms? I think that a standing Elections Committee might be able to
>>> facilitate this kind of cycle.
>>> 
>>> Also worth considering:
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Thinking_about_the_WMF_Board_composition
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Anders Wennersten <
>>> m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>>> 
 Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
 
> leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
> royal abdication or the result of failure.
> 
> Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board
>> would
 be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community
>> election
 to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are
>> to
 be elected by the Board if resignation occurs.
 As the community election today only gives  three candidates for the
 Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner
>> up, to
 be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three.
 This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election
>> community
 in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by
 the Board.  To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a
>> bit
 far, time since last election is further away, and number five in the
 election has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board
>> in
 their selection after a community election were to reject two
>> candidates I
 would consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the
>> list .
 
 But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for
 the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how
 could fill the empty seat after Danny
 
 
 Anders
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[James Heilman]

Two community elected members every 1.5 years would be a good. Three could
than be elected if someone steps down.

James

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> I forgot to add that one of the benefits of having elections scheduled
> every year is that if a community-elected member departs from the board in
> the first year of their term, then it's simple to have another seat elected
> in the next cycle to fill the remainder of that term..
>
> Pine
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including
> > about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process.
> >
> > Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to
> > another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4
> > community-elected seats every year with 2 seats elected each year for 2
> > year terms? I think that a standing Elections Committee might be able to
> > facilitate this kind of cycle.
> >
> > Also worth considering:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Thinking_about_the_WMF_Board_composition
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Anders Wennersten <
> > m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
> >
> >> Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
> >>
> >>> leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
> >>> royal abdication or the result of failure.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board
> would
> >> be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community
> election
> >> to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are
> to
> >> be elected by the Board if resignation occurs.
> >> As the community election today only gives  three candidates for the
> >> Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner
> up, to
> >> be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three.
> >> This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election
> community
> >> in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by
> >> the Board.  To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a
> bit
> >> far, time since last election is further away, and number five in the
> >> election has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board
> in
> >> their selection after a community election were to reject two
> candidates I
> >> would consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the
> list .
> >>
> >> But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for
> >> the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how
> >> could fill the empty seat after Danny
> >>
> >>
> >> Anders
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Pine W]

I forgot to add that one of the benefits of having elections scheduled
every year is that if a community-elected member departs from the board in
the first year of their term, then it's simple to have another seat elected
in the next cycle to fill the remainder of that term..

Pine

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including
> about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process.
>
> Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to
> another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4
> community-elected seats every year with 2 seats elected each year for 2
> year terms? I think that a standing Elections Committee might be able to
> facilitate this kind of cycle.
>
> Also worth considering:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Thinking_about_the_WMF_Board_composition
>
> Pine
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Anders Wennersten <
> m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>
>> Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
>>
>>> leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
>>> royal abdication or the result of failure.
>>>
>>> Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board would
>> be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community election
>> to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are to
>> be elected by the Board if resignation occurs.
>> As the community election today only gives  three candidates for the
>> Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner up, to
>> be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three.
>> This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election community
>> in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by
>> the Board.  To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a bit
>> far, time since last election is further away, and number five in the
>> election has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board in
>> their selection after a community election were to reject two candidates I
>> would consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the list .
>>
>> But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for
>> the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how
>> could fill the empty seat after Danny
>>
>>
>> Anders
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Pine W]

I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including
about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process.

Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to
another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4
community-elected seats every year with 2 seats elected each year for 2
year terms? I think that a standing Elections Committee might be able to
facilitate this kind of cycle.

Also worth considering:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Thinking_about_the_WMF_Board_composition

Pine

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
>
>> leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
>> royal abdication or the result of failure.
>>
>> Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board would
> be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community election
> to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are to
> be elected by the Board if resignation occurs.
> As the community election today only gives  three candidates for the Board
> to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner up, to be
> selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three. This
> reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election community in
> early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by the
> Board.  To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a bit far,
> time since last election is further away, and number five in the election
> has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board in their
> selection after a community election were to reject two candidates I would
> consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the list .
>
> But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for
> the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how
> could fill the empty seat after Danny
>
>
> Anders
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Anders Wennersten]

Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:

leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
royal abdication or the result of failure.

Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board would 
be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community 
election to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these 
reserves are to be elected by the Board if resignation occurs.
As the community election today only gives  three candidates for the 
Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner up, 
to be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first 
three. This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election 
community in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement 
for James by the Board.  To extend the same reasoning this time is 
stretching it a bit far, time since last election is further away, and 
number five in the election has at least by me never been seen as a 
runnerup. If the Board in their selection after a community election 
were to reject two candidates I would consider a reelection more 
relevant then to go further down the list .


But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for 
the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how 
could fill the empty seat after Danny


Anders

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Fæ]

Yes. The 'not' was implied. ;-)

Per future President Clinton, those were just my words.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-misspoke-over-claims-of-sniper-fire-in-visit-to-bosnia-800606.html

If only there was a way of writing text online that could be edited
after pressing the save button, someone should invent that.

Fae

On 9 April 2016 at 11:55, Andrew Lih  wrote:
> Did you miss a “not” in there?
>
> Fae said:
> “Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be
> made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”
>
> Suggested edit:
> “…leaving your seat should NOT be made to appear like a royal abdication or
> the result of failure.”
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests
>> or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board
>> could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest
>> beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid
>> volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
>> royal abdication or the result of failure.
>>
>> The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee,
>> of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is
>> something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default*
>> position should be that this information is public unless there are
>> jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be
>> carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether
>> it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a
>> standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For
>> example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade
>> never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public
>> minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that
>> interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of
>> apparent shame and drama.
>>
>> Fae
>>
>> On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten 
>> wrote:
>> > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
>> mail
>> > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
>> resign
>> > the only reasonable way forward
>> >
>> > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
>> a
>> > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
>> > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
>> look
>> > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
>> > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
>> > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
>> >
>> > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
>> ordinary
>> > work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration
>> > hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength,
>> "Wikidata",
>> > is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re
>> this
>> > also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence
>> finds
>> > he has limited "value" for the board work.
>> >
>> > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
>> the
>> > ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
>> > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
>> > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
>> (lightweight)
>> > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
>> this
>> > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
>> > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
>> > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
>> > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
>> > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
>> > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
>> candidate
>> > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
>> > had helped?
>> >
>> > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
>> will
>> > probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the
>> > election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion
>> of
>> > learnings can start independently.
>> >
>> > Anders
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Andrew Lih]

Did you miss a “not” in there?

Fae said:
“Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be
made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”

Suggested edit:
“…leaving your seat should NOT be made to appear like a royal abdication or
the result of failure.”



On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests
> or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board
> could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest
> beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid
> volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
> royal abdication or the result of failure.
>
> The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee,
> of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is
> something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default*
> position should be that this information is public unless there are
> jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be
> carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether
> it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a
> standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For
> example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade
> never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public
> minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that
> interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of
> apparent shame and drama.
>
> Fae
>
> On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten 
> wrote:
> > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
> mail
> > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> resign
> > the only reasonable way forward
> >
> > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
> a
> > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
> look
> > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
> >
> > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> ordinary
> > work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration
> > hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength,
> "Wikidata",
> > is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re
> this
> > also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence
> finds
> > he has limited "value" for the board work.
> >
> > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> the
> > ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
> (lightweight)
> > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
> this
> > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
> candidate
> > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> > had helped?
> >
> > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> will
> > probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the
> > election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion
> of
> > learnings can start independently.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Fæ]

It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests
or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board
could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest
beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid
volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a
royal abdication or the result of failure.

The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee,
of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is
something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default*
position should be that this information is public unless there are
jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be
carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether
it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a
standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For
example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade
never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public
minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that
interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of
apparent shame and drama.

Fae

On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten  wrote:
> I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail
> made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign
> the only reasonable way forward
>
> BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a
> year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should look
> into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
>
> For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in ordinary
> work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration
> hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength, "Wikidata",
> is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re this
> also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence finds
> he has limited "value" for the board work.
>
> But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary the
> ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of (lightweight)
> "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified this
> risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the candidate
> statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> had helped?
>
> The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it will
> probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the
> election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion of
> learnings can start independently.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of
interest?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be
> sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
> committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the
> candidacy and to manage them better.
>
> Kind regards
> Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten"  ha
> scritto:
>
> > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
> mail
> > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> > resign the only reasonable way forward
> >
> > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
> a
> > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
> look
> > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
> >
> > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> > ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
> > consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
> > strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
> > influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
> that
> > he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board
> work.
> >
> > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> > the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
> (lightweight)
> > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
> this
> > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
> candidate
> > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> > had helped?
> >
> > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> > will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes
> in
> > the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a
> > discussion of learnings can start independently.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Ilario Valdelli]

What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be
sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the
candidacy and to manage them better.

Kind regards
Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten"  ha
scritto:

> I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail
> made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> resign the only reasonable way forward
>
> BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a
> year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should look
> into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
>
> For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
> consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
> strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
> influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and that
> he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board work.
>
> But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of (lightweight)
> "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified this
> risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the candidate
> statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> had helped?
>
> The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in
> the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a
> discussion of learnings can start independently.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] What can we learn

[Anders Wennersten]

I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his 
mail made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option 
to resign the only reasonable way forward


BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within 
a year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a 
snap byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we 
should look into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, 
primary in the election process, that can be done to ensure the 
appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole 
term.


For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in 
ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI 
consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major 
strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any 
influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and 
that he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the 
board work.


But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary 
the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of 
requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the 
challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of 
(lightweight) "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have 
identified this risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the 
candidate)? Should for future election the election committee not only 
be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing 
the data given by each candidate by some type of comments? For example 
last time the requirement from the board was non western (non English 
natives) persons and priority for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. 
Could some mark on the candidate statement made by the EC (he/she is/is 
not fulfilling the Board criteria) had helped?


The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it 
will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes 
in the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a 
discussion of learnings can start independently.


Anders




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,