On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> 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 <at...@outlook.com> 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 <at> 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
