So we've now moved from "the board doesn't ask hard enough questions!" to "the board doesn't tell us enough"? Those are distinct concerns. If you have them, I'd suggest spinning off a thread so we can keep this one to what it's meant to be discussing.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pardon the mobile device mistype. A *move* toward more openness. > > Pine > On Mar 13, 2015 12:49 PM, "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Oliver, >> >> I have thought about running more than once (: >> >> Perhaps I am reading more into that comment than was intended. >> >> James, >> >> I have mixed feelings about having discussions behind closed doors. >> Sometimes it's convenient or emotionally easier to do so, but I worry about >> losing our value of openness in the process. The majority of my evaluation >> is based on what I've seen in writing from board minutes, which seem pretty >> sparse on Q&A with the ED and staff. By contrast, I'm accustomed to our >> generally open meetings of government entities here in Washington State >> where we have some pretty expansive open records and open meetings laws, >> and these seem to viewed in a positive light by the public which wants to >> understand the positions of its elected officials. A mice toward more >> openness about board discussions might ease some of my concerns. >> >> Thanks, >> Pine >> On Mar 13, 2015 12:32 PM, "Oliver Keyes" <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> (Personal capacity) >>> >>> Pine: I think you're reading far more into Phoebe's comment than it >>> actually contained. What she said was "I trust our legal team to make >>> decisions about what legal actions to participate in." In other words, >>> to make evaluations about the probability of success, the necessity of >>> the thing that's being (defended|challenged) to the legal framework >>> that lets the projects exist, and act on that basis. >>> >>> Unless I missed an election and the board now contains the equivalent >>> expertise in internet law and the intricacies of our governing >>> frameworks to an entire legal department, it seems entirely >>> appropriate that these kinds of evaluations be left to the, you know, >>> lawyers. I agree that boards should ask tough questions, but I've >>> never been in a WMF board meeting and, to my knowledge, neither have >>> you. There's a wide range of options between "directly making >>> decisions about legal questions" and "not asking questions"; it's not >>> as binary as you seem to believe. This applies to the VE as much as it >>> does anything else. If you think the WMF needs a more activist board - >>> which seems to mean "a board that makes individual, specific product >>> decisions and assumes legal expertise", I encourage you to run in the >>> next election and we'll see what the movement as a whole thinks of >>> that position. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I'm generally supportive of this legal action, but I am troubled by this >>> > statement: >>> > >>> > "I trust our legal team to make decisions about what legal actions to >>> > participate in." >>> > >>> > In general I think highly of Michelle, but this statement fits a >>> > long-running pattern I percieve in WMF governance of the board being >>> > deferential to the ED and staff. This goes back to Sue's tenure and >>> > possibly longer. I feel that the Board should respectfully ask tough >>> > questions about staff recommendations. Had the board done so, we might >>> all >>> > have been saved from the MediaViewer, VisualEditor, and other product >>> > dramas because the Board would have been vigilant about project >>> selection >>> > and quality control. WMF needs an activist board. All of the guidance >>> that >>> > I read about boards in general says that good boards do due diligance, >>> and >>> > I would encourage the WMF board to be proactive and ask tough questions. >>> > This can be done while maintaining a positive and respectful atmosphere. >>> > >>> > Thank you, >>> > >>> > Pine >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
