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 <andrew....@gmail.com> 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 <fae...@gmail.com> 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 <m...@anderswennersten.se> >> 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, >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
