26.04.2016, 03:25, "John Mark Vandenberg" :
> My reading of that is Jimmy supported her "departure" with sadness.
> i.e. he avoids indicating how the departure occurred; neither dismissal nor
> resignation.
>
> No doubt that type of phrasing is in the HR handbook for situations like
> this, to avo
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage >
> wrote:
> >
> > Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> > "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila."
>
>
> Wait -- seriously??
>
No, it'
On 26 Apr 2016 09:25, "Craig Franklin" wrote:
>
> I imagine that this is the email that Trillium is referring to, for those
> who are just joining us:
>
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082566.html
>
> Whether he means that he supported her "dismissal" or supported
I imagine that this is the email that Trillium is referring to, for those
who are just joining us:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082566.html
Whether he means that he supported her "dismissal" or supported her
"resignation" is left to the reader.
Cheers,
Craig
The Signpost has just published the October 2015 email exchange between
James and Jimmy - the exchange that Jimmy wouldn't release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-24/Op-ed
Thank you Signpost.
Anthony Cole
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Anthony Cole wrot
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage
wrote:
>
> Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila."
Wait -- seriously??
I missed this piece until today. But if this is true, it is huge.
Lila's depart
This is getting ridiculous.
Jimmy, you quoted from an email exchange with James. James claims this
selective quoting distorted the nature of the exchange. You have been asked
to publish the entire exchange. The only other party to that exchange
(James) wants it published. As Fae and others have re
On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Governance worth a damn... Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
> to Jimmy the rest is also history.
Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
>
> But honestly. In the final analysis the more import
Hoi,
Governance worth a damn... Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
to Jimmy the rest is also history.
But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
relevant, the first thing to do is not to mi
Andreas, et al
On 23 March, Jimmy stated:[1]
"Still waiting to see if the board allows another board member to
publish something that will then allow me to publish further. But I
did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant."
We are now exactly one month down the track and there
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
>
> Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic.
> And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a
> dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life. Senior
> movement figur
Yes, Jimmy is effective in his board role - unfortunately, well, have you
seen the threads about his behaviour in that role? If you instead mean he
is only valuable as an icon or media figure because of it you'll need a
better argument than a statement as if the claim is fact.
Also, no, the United
Hoi,
Do you really think that democratic processes produce a best result? Do you
really think that the Wikimedia Foundation or the United States deserve
that label?
Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of
transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so m
If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will not
decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he
stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.
What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and
accountability. Our moveme
On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Arguably the latest
> crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make
> a meaningful contribution.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
In particular?
Gordo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, g
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes out,
> the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
> an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend on
> sha
Hoi,
So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes out,
the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend on
sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of convin
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with
James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations
against James.[1]
James replied twice:
Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
complete, and is not an accurate repres
I second that Gerard
On 16-04-16 08:16, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you
have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a
benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes
over as pe
Risker, your suggestion that by asking for board minutes I was really calling
(and "pruriently" so!) for public release of Lila's performance appraisals is
so bizarre and ridiculous that I don't know how to defend it except by advising
anyone confused by you to actually read my prior email.
Sim
Hoi,
You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you
have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a
benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes
over as personal.
What I personally observed in quite a few occasions is th
Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on the
topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the minutes of the
board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the executive director
Lila Tretikov will be published.
I did look for them (https://w
On 15 April 2016 at 17:42, Trillium Corsage wrote:
> Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on
> the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the
> minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the
> executive director Lila T
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
his own steam?
His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
repeated
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>
> Diff, please.
Answer came there none...
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
After a chat with someone more familiar with Jimmy Wales' user talk
page than myself (I don't regularly follow it, as Jimmy does not grant
me free speech there), I think this may be the link,[1] but we agree
it's impossible to tell for sure as it all seems too obscure and
tangential; quote:"... I c
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on
your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?
Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > But I did publish somethi
On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
Diff, please.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wi
On 3/22/16 6:18 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
> Were you successful in getting clarity?
Still waiting to see if the board allows another board member to publish
something that will then allow me to publish further. But I did publish
It is good that you keep such track of the commitment. It would be nice if
that were done in a more constructive fashion.
You will often find me on your side when asking for more transparency. I do
think that doing this in a more constructive way will be much more
effective in the long run.
Lodew
Hi Lodewijk, thanks for stepping in to rationalize Jimmy Wales'
behaviour in the silence from WMF trustees or Jimmy.
Last week Kolbe summarized the situation in an email as:
"Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously
or unconsciously applied here: tell people that
Let me rephrase that for you:
Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested.
Were you successful in getting clarity?
If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and
argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more
tempted to
It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish
something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere.
Can anyone share a link to it?
Thanks,
Fae
On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not
> promising any s
On 16 March 2016 at 12:17, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
...
> If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we
> start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has
> gone on long enough.
...
There is no excuse for a $100m/year Foundation to endorse a trust
I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not
promising any sooner.
On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy
Hoi,
May I ask on what basis this should be done. Is it not equally relevant to
ask yourself how isolated you are in your position? Is this what we need,
will it do us any good or is it just that you feel that this is what "we"
need ?
It is fine for you to spout what you do. However, I am very muc
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
> > wrote:
> >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> >> release an email?
> >
> > Yes. Ji
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>> release an email?
>>
>
> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
> whethe
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
wrote:
>
> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> release an email?
>
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales
> wrote:
>>
>> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
>> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
>
>
> Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrea
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Jimmy Wales
wrote:
> One unhealthy cycle that I think we've gotten into is what I would call
> "Kremlinology".
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology
>
> The cycle looks like this:
> - the board doesn't share enough, so people are forced to try to
> interpr
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales
wrote:
>
> I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately
> reminded why some people call it "drama-l"
Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama,
there are much more effective things you can do. Your a
On 3/3/16 11:19 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
> a video camera into the board room, we should look at reasons why the Board
> of Trustees might not feel comfortable being transparent. The only real
> solution will involve cu
Ariel Glenn writes:
> I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently;
I
> suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it
happen
Minutes review doesn't need to be prolonged; the longer you wait the less
participants remember. Online board votes can b
+1. There was an easy way to split the baby here; "the board has
confidence". Done. Simple. What the language actually used did, as
well as (now) betray trust and confidence, was induce the sense that
for all people said they were listening to staff, nobody was.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:39 PM, An
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:24 PM, jytdog wrote:
> Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that throwing
> integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it is
> absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have been
> honest and simpl
Thanks Risker. Maybe there is a mixing of levels here.
I am urging that we address things have become broken on a deep level,
namely the gap between what the board says and what James has said and the
destruction of trust caused by that gap.
If all Pierre was doing was saying that he disagreed w
Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than
is really there.
Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself
trust-destroying for [him]". He said it was a mistake, and he said it was
a mistake because the board was wrong to think that the ED could recov
Hi Jytdog,
My response was actually more to Oliver than you, but I still would draw a
distinction between "unanimous support" and "majority support". It might
seem innocuous enough but as Pierre-Selim points out, "majority support" is
actually not a great reflection on an employee, as it presumab
Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that throwing
integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it is
absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have been
honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, a
Seriously ?
If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine
the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw
poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it
costs (talents
If the board is choosing not to participate for a particular reason, or
Jimmy is choosing not to release e-mails for a particular reason, then they
should say so. Nothing keeps them from offering that information
themselves. It isn't necessary for other people to speculate on whether the
deafening
I would also like to more about the decision to remove James — I am not yet
able to reconcile the public statements I’ve seen from James and Jimmy.
However, I am less concerned about the apparent disconnect between the
board statement of unanimous support and James claim that there was not
unanimou
Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR
matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say.
It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the board
supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did
support Lila) vs "th
I agree with Craig on the most reasonable interpretation of the limited
commentary from the Board in recent weeks. Indeed, it would be quite
normal, even expected, to include a mutual non-disparagement clause in any
separation agreement, which by its very nature is confidential.
Risker/Anne
On
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a
particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the
"full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence:
IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that Lila's
continuation was the best thing.
I note that Patricio, despite being Chairman of the board
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:11 PM, jytdog wrote:
> How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the
> contradictions?
>
Several people have asked Jimmy to release his 30 December 2015 email to
James, in which he apparently explains in part why James was removed.
Jimmy said on
Thanks for the kind replies.
The thing I really want to surface here, is the harder thing.
It seems to me that what has gone on around James Heilman's dismissal, has
some things to do with basic board processes being poor, and poorly
executed, for sure, but also.. and this is the hardest part of
Recordings of board meetings will be of value to future historians.
Anthony Cole
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> +1
>
> Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release
> the recordings publicly.
>
> We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trust
+1
Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release
the recordings publicly.
We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a
massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please,
start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is my first posting here. Sorry if I do anything wrong.
>
> I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
>
> And I guess this one too
> https:/
They were doing this regularly until January:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_meetings/2016-01-30
and see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_meetings
I suspect this dropped a bit in priority since then, for obvious reasons, but
hopefully
Hm, for quite a while, the board agenda's were published before the
meetings took place. At least, for the well in advance-scheduled meetings
(the regular ones). I didn't see any recently though. I think it would
indeed be good to put on the list of 'possible transparency topics' to
discuss...
Lod
> we could start with a smaller step: get the agenda
> published within 5 days after any meeting
"I would support as best practice the public posting of agendas for
routine board meetings. I would support that minutes be posted
promptly - but before the next meetings agenda is finalized is
I'd like to see more complete minutes that get published more frequently; I
suspect the members of the Board would love it if they could make it happen
by waving a wand and have it be so.
I was once a public observer taking notes for a Board meeting for a
different organization, and there was no w
This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board
meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
decided elsewhere.
Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
a video camera into the board room, we should look at
The "minutes" released to the public are ridiculously scant. I tried to find
out more last year about the board's removing the identification requirement
from those the WMF grants access to the non-public information of contributors,
but ran into dead-ends. The only thing I could decipher really
On 2016-03-03 18:17, Nathan wrote:
So instead - why not ask the board to hold quarterly public meetings?
The
WMF engages with the community through the model of public meetings all
the
time, and participants have been happy with the opportunity to hear
staff
work through issues and offer
What do we want? We want to understand what board members think about major
issues, we want some sense of the direction of the organization as driven
by the board, we want to be able to see and verify that issues important to
stakeholders throughout the movement are being considered and addressed b
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
>
> I’d be eager to try this idea of observers/scribes from the community,
> with the slight amendment that I don’t think it *needs* to be a different
> person every time, though it should certainly be open to participation as
> much as possible.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker wrote:
>
> Thanks. I think one idea would be to e.g. invite a community representative
> to each meeting as an observer, responsible for reviewing the minutes. This
> would always be a different pe
On Mar 3, 2016 8:19 AM, "Pete Forsyth" wrote:
>
> Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't
> seen addressed:
>
> Are there notes kept during executive sessions?
Per the minutes policy listed on wiki yes they are kept; they are kept
separate by the secretary and n
Speaking from my non-Wikimedia experiences with nonprofit boards, I think
Risker makes some good points.
Even a very good notetaker is going to make mistakes. There are things said
they accidentally didn’t hear, they misunderstood what someone was saying, or
simply summarized a point using word
*nod* very good points; it may be worth thinking about whether "minutes"
and "communicating a clear reference of what's going on" should be distinct
issues treated separately. If we've been conflating them in out discussion
that might be leading some of us down wrong paths in potential solutions.
Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't
seen addressed:
Are there notes kept during executive sessions?
From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that
doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing
minutes; but keepi
On 3 March 2016 at 10:36, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" wrote:
> Those who think it's an easy task that should be
> > able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no
> real
> > experience with writing and managing minutes at the international
> > no
On Mar 3, 2016 7:00 AM, "Risker" wrote:
Those who think it's an easy task that should be
> able to be done practically after the meeting is over tend to have no real
> experience with writing and managing minutes at the international
> non-profit board level and may not fully understand why it it
On Mar 3, 2016 6:16 AM, "Risker" wrote:
>
> I often participate and present at meetings where I am not formally part
of
> the group or committee, and will be asked to review sections of the
minutes
> that relate to my presentation/participation/comments. I've discovered
> that in about 60% of th
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Risker wrote:
>
>>
> "Responsible for reviewing the minutes". This is a lovely ideal. Can we
> now be realistic? What do we really expect that "observer" to do? Will
> they have input in to what the minutes finally say? Do they have approval
> authority (i.e.,
On 3 March 2016 at 09:22, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a
> large
> > part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be
> > discounted as an issue; i
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Chris Sherlock
wrote:
>
>
> Do you serve on any non-profit boards Chris?
>
> Chris
>
Chris Keating is on the board of the WMUK.
In any case, it seems like there are many deliberative or legislative
bodies that see themselves as responsible to the public which ma
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Risker wrote:
>
>
> For the WMF board, we throw in the additional complexity of having a large
> part of the board working in a non-primary language. This should not be
> discounted as an issue; it is actually one of the bigger factors that board
> communications n
On 3 March 2016 at 07:53, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the
> meeting
> > > by the designated note taker(s)?
> >
> >
> > Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a f
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating
wrote:
> >
> > Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting
> > by the designated note taker(s)?
>
>
> Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve
> as minutes?
I'd appreciate a closer perspecti
> On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:37 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Sherlock
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy
>> to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either
>> reduce their commitmen
On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:36 PM, Chris Keating wrote:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
>>
>> Nope.
> If you ever do, I think you will end up with a very different perspective
> o
> A few reflections on this subject:
>
(snip)
I forgot one. Herewith:
4) Minutes while helpful aren't a substitute for proactive communication.
Having just written about this subject at length* I won't go into it again.
But when the WMF Board simply makes a controversial decision and putting
out
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Sherlock
wrote:
>
>
> That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy
> to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either
> reduce their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They
> have responsi
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating
> wrote:
> >
> > Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
>
> Nope.
>
>
If you ever do, I think you will end up with a very different perspective
on the commitment of time and emotional energy WMF boa
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:22 PM, Chris Keating wrote:
>
> Out of interest, Chris, have you ever served on a nonprofit board?
Nope.
Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guid
>
>
> That does NOT take 3 weeks. I would also suggest if the Board are too busy
> to provide input on the minutes of Board business then they need to either
> reduce their commitments, or they need to step away from the Board. They
> have responsibilities that they committed to when they accepted
On 3 Mar 2016, at 10:56 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting
> by the designated note taker(s)?
>
> -- brion
And why is the entire board writing up the minutes?
In fact, the job of a scribe is to be able to take down accurate not
On 3 March 2016 at 11:51, Chris Keating wrote:
> A few reflections on this subject:
>
> 1) I would however endorse the idea of publishing more papers /
> presentations, and fuller notes of discussions in minutes. These give a
> lot of context to what is going on, and often it's lack of context th
>
> Why would minutes be written after the fact instead of during the meeting
> by the designated note taker(s)?
Because the notes you take as you go along aren't in a fit state to serve
as minutes?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://
On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Chris Keating
wrote:
>
> 3) 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame
> to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from
> people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on
> Monday go back to their
A few reflections on this subject:
1) I would however endorse the idea of publishing more papers /
presentations, and fuller notes of discussions in minutes. These give a
lot of context to what is going on, and often it's lack of context that
makes people concerned about what is actually going on
> On 3 Mar 2016, at 6:22 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> To discuss which practices to adopt, it's worth first looking at the
> existing Board manual, which is a remarkably detailed document that
> goes into many of these issues including the exact process for minutes
> publication, what types of in
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>
> To discuss which practices to adopt, it's worth first looking at the
> existing Board manual, which is a remarkably detailed document that
> goes into many of these issues including the exact process for minutes
> publication, what types of in
2016-03-02 23:22 GMT-08:00 Erik Moeller :
> Jimmy made a couple of suggestions earlier [1], including to publish
> all presentations given to the Board and to have a trusted community
> observer.
"Nearly all", to paraphrase accurately, and on re-reading the email
I'm not sure I understand the "obs
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
