Indeed there's nothing to be surprised of, m/Oppenheim has always been used.
Alice Wiegand, 17/02/2013 00:55:
Interested individuals should contact Lisa Grossman li...@moppenheim.com
I didn't understand this line: did you mean individuals interested in
"applying" for the position or in commenting the process?
Using a firm like m/Oppenheim is good, but not particularly useful given
that we (as Wikimedia movement) obviously (probably?) have no idea of
what we really need from a WMF trustee, which is way harder to define
than the desiderata for a manager with rather specific tasks.
Alice created this useful page to which more people should add their
feedback, IMHO:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Board_Governance_Committee/Agenda_2012-2013/Appointed_seats/What_makes_a_good_Trustee%3F>
Is it superseded? I think it shouldn't.
For instance, let me say that I don't like the position description at
all. :)
It describes the board as a highly defensive body, in need of trench
warfare experts:
* «has the ability to make unpopular decisions when necessary and
explain them transparently in the face of criticism»;
* «comfortable *receiving* input and criticism from many sources»;
* «ability to tolerate a high degree of ambiguity, and to *negotiate*
with people having sharply defined opinions»;
* « *Patience* with consensus processes»
(emphasis mine).
There's only a passage about «willingness to
learn from and engage with the community» which despite the word
"engage" is made into a passive light by «deeply understand their
interests and concerns».
This is not what we need from a trustee, in my opinion. What we need is
trustees able to:
1) *solicit* an ealthy discussion,
2) *involve* more people in the WMF work and priorities and in the
discussions about them,
3) make the board stronger and more credible so that its not just a "vox
clamantis in deserto" whose resolutions have no effect on reality (see
Openness, probably also BLP... with all due respect and without
repeating discussions we've had also in person) or are only monstruous
wastes of time/resources for Wikimedia (see image filter [1]);
4) to *revolutionize* (if needed) a body so *sclerotic* that even when
we have elections discussions are deadly empty and boring,[2] we have
99.5 % abstention,[3] nobody asks or reads questions.[4]
HTH,
Nemo
[1] Referendum also had 96 % abstention,
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Email/False_positives>
[2]
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011#Candidates_look_like_Bre.C5.BEnev>
[3] 80+ % abstention according to some estimates, no data available
(also telling about transparency); eligible voters multiplied by 2-3
times, voters stayed the same.
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/Results/en#footer>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=2643859>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/?diff=2672174>
[4] 55 people involved counting also vandals.
<http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=meta.wikimedia&page=Board+elections%2F2011%2FCandidates%2FQuestions%2F1>
<http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=meta.wikimedia&page=Board+elections%2F2011%2FCandidates%2FQuestions%2F2>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
