Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

wikimail at inbox

Apr 28, 2008, 4:50 AM

Post #51 of 189 (458 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
> > For the record, this is the current chapter distribution:
> > Europe - 9
> > East Asia - 2
> > Middle East - 1
> > South America - 1
> > Australia - 1
> >
> > -Mark
>
>
> You are absolutely correct Mark.
> But you may not have understood that chapters will not necessarily elect
> chapter members ?
> I even have the weakness to think that they will have the wisdom to
> avoid that trap ;-)
>

Hey, the method of chapter selection hasn't been determined yet,
right? So the chapters could just choose to use the same election
process as the rest of the elected members. Or would the board forbid
that?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

notafishz at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 4:54 AM

Post #52 of 189 (460 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek [at] gmail> wrote:
> 2008/4/28 Dan Rosenthal <swatjester [at] gmail>:

> I am wondering if it would be possible to make a voting similar to the
> "normal" community seats' election but the voters would be formal
> members of chapters only. Candidates would be nominated by Boards of
> chapters. The problem is what to do with non-member chapters (are
> there any?)

On the paper, there aren't any chapters with no members. In the
reality, some older chapters and some new don't have members /yet/.

Delphine

--
~notafish
http://blog.notanendive.org

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

midom.lists at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 5:10 AM

Post #53 of 189 (460 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Hello,

> Honestly, a few months participating in the projects hands on
> would give the Board and staff a much better idea of who they're
> working for. It's not for your large donors. It's not for potential
> venture capitalists. It's not for any of the reasons or people
> that seem to recently be the focus of the WMF.

Alas, we're all working for readers (and creating nice environment to
convert readers into writers).
Collaboration and community is tool to create the value of freely
accessible knowledge.

Board is not governing the community, either. Board is taking care,
that organization, that supports the projects, is able to sustain,
provide tools for contributors, provide access to users.
Organization is trying to facilitate lots of things, but rarely to be
'power body'. It is not 'power body', it does not want to exercise
power.
It is not representational body, it is a body where people spend
quite some time to discuss and agree on topics, based on various inputs.

> In case you all have forgotten, you work for the community.

In our work, everyone is our community. A kid that tells his parents
how wikipedia is good for him. A student fighting with his teacher
about credibility of his sources. Anyone who uses Wikipedia in the
end ends up to be an advocate. Is advocate part of our community? For
sure. How many readers of ours are advocates? :)

> The community is not the tight-knit group who post on Foundation-l
> channels, such as Planet Wikimedia or the WMF Blog). The
> community also isn't defined by what the ED's staff or Board says
> it is.

:) indeed, because there is no such definition.

> The community is the millions of anonymous and pseudo-anonymous
> contributors who've put their work into the projects to give a
> staff a nice
> fat paycheck and let the Board pussyfoot their way around proper
> governance.

Please, show some respect to people for their work, as behind the
'nice fat' (???) paycheck there are duties and responsibilities, that
had to be taken care of.

> Out of curiosity: If the entire Board and staff were put up to a
> public vote
> across /all/ projects (assuming good representation could be assured),
> I wonder how many of them would be with the WMF at the end of the day.

Unfortunately, not all aspects of running an organization are a
popularity contest.

--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

jason.safoutin at wikinewsie

Apr 28, 2008, 8:51 AM

Post #54 of 189 (462 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Domas Mituzas

wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity: If the entire Board and staff were put up to a
>> public vote
>> across /all/ projects (assuming good representation could be assured),
>> I wonder how many of them would be with the WMF at the end of the day.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, not all aspects of running an organization are a
> popularity contest.
>
>
Fortunately for us, the board is a popularity contest. And whether the
board likes it or not, we elected you. And those who were appointed have
the same obligation as those elected and can face the same criticism as
such. If we, the communities see you guys are not doing your job in the
best interest of Wikimedia, then we have the right to say we think you
guys should resign.

You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done
nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no
attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura.
The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions
with total disregard as to what we might think.

From what I see, the only board member doing anything around here, or
making the slightest attempt to communicate with the communities as much
as possible, is Florence. And what a surprise, her seat is up for grabs.

Like it or not board, you work for us. Not for yourselves. I think this
is a wake up call and I think now the communities are sick of it, and
not going totake it anymore.

Sorry if this sound rude or confrontational, but it seems that this is
the only way to get anyone's attention, who is on the board these days
as they seem to only pay attention to whats said on here and on meta. So
that being the case, it gets increasingly frustrating to have to be
civil and not get anything in return. So please see where I am coming
from, and the others who feel the same way.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Community_petition

Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bryan.tongminh at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:16 AM

Post #55 of 189 (457 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Jason Safoutin
<jason.safoutin [at] wikinewsie> wrote:
>
>
> Domas Mituzas
>
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Out of curiosity: If the entire Board and staff were put up to a
> >> public vote
> >> across /all/ projects (assuming good representation could be assured),
> >> I wonder how many of them would be with the WMF at the end of the day.
> >>
> >
> > Unfortunately, not all aspects of running an organization are a
> > popularity contest.
> >
> >
> Fortunately for us, the board is a popularity contest. And whether the
> board likes it or not, we elected you. And those who were appointed have
> the same obligation as those elected and can face the same criticism as
> such. If we, the communities see you guys are not doing your job in the
> best interest of Wikimedia, then we have the right to say we think you
> guys should resign.
>
Doing what it best for Wikimedia is not always what is the most
popular. Thankfully at least part of the board selection process is
not a popularity contest.

[...]
> Like it or not board, you work for us. Not for yourselves. I think this
> is a wake up call and I think now the communities are sick of it, and
> not going totake it anymore.
>
Please do not speak for the entire community. You and other people on
foundation-l may not like the way everything goes but that does not
mean that this is the opinion of the entire community.

Bryan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geo.plrd at yahoo

Apr 28, 2008, 9:27 AM

Post #56 of 189 (463 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Unfortunately, they no longer are subject to the will of the community. So technically they no longer work for us.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin [at] wikinewsie>
To: foundation-l [at] lists
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:51:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

Domas Mituzas

wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity: If the entire Board and staff were put up to a�
>> public vote
>> across /all/ projects (assuming good representation could be assured),
>> I wonder how many of them would be with the WMF at the end of the day.
>>� �
>
> Unfortunately, not all aspects of running an organization are a�
> popularity contest.
>
>�
Fortunately for us, the board is a popularity contest. And whether the
board likes it or not, we elected you. And those who were appointed have
the same obligation as those elected and can face the same criticism as
such. If we, the communities see you guys are not doing your job in the
best interest of Wikimedia, then we have the right to say we think you
guys should resign.

You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done
nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no
attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura.
The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions
with total disregard as to what we might think.

From what I see, the only board member doing anything around here, or
making the slightest attempt to communicate with the communities as much
as possible, is Florence. And what a surprise, her seat is up for grabs.

Like it or not board, you work for us. Not for yourselves. I think this
is a wake up call and I think now the communities are sick of it, and
not going totake it anymore.

Sorry if this sound rude or confrontational, but it seems that this is
the only way to get anyone's attention, who is on the board these days
as they seem to only pay attention to whats said on here and on meta. So
that being the case, it gets increasingly frustrating to have to be
civil and not get anything in return. So please see where I am coming
from, and the others who feel the same way.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Community_petition

Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wknight8111 at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:29 AM

Post #57 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Jason Safoutin
> You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done
> nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no
> attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura.
> The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions
> with total disregard as to what we might think.

I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here,
but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some
competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is
just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and
financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or
blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of
participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level
of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.

Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select
group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an
old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and
that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's
highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they
can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is
highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not
want should be ignored off-hand.

Since emails, complaints, discussion have done nothing to turn the
creeping tide of secrecy and separation on the part of the current
board, perhaps the best recourse is for community members to speak
with their votes. Board members who have been acting in a way contra
to the will and benefit of the community should be systematically
removed, and replaced with community members who are actually
dedicated to this community. Most voters will probably agree that
board members without such dedication do not belong on the board
beyond the next election.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geo.plrd at yahoo

Apr 28, 2008, 9:36 AM

Post #58 of 189 (457 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Unfortunately, we can't remove most of them. Maybe the Board should not have the power to modify bylaws.

----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 [at] gmail>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:29:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Jason Safoutin
>� You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done
>� nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no
>� attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura.
>� The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions
>� with total disregard as to what we might think.

I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here,
but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some
competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is
just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and
financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or
blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of
participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level
of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.

Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select
group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an
old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and
that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's
highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they
can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is
highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not
want should be ignored off-hand.

Since emails, complaints, discussion have done nothing to turn the
creeping tide of secrecy and separation on the part of the current
board, perhaps the best recourse is for community members to speak
with their votes. Board members who have been acting in a way contra
to the will and benefit of the community should be systematically
removed, and replaced with community members who are actually
dedicated to this community. Most voters will probably agree that
board members without such dedication do not belong on the board
beyond the next election.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

nawrich at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:41 AM

Post #59 of 189 (459 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so
quickly to revolutionary ultimatums. The board has not 'betrayed the
community' - it simply took a step, regarding its own composition, that took
a portion of the community by surprise. Many would have liked to hear about
these changes in advance, to discuss them and potentially influence
alterations to the changes before they became fait accompli. This doesn't
translate to "We must eliminate the Board and start over with people who
don't totally ignore the will of the community."

As a matter of fact, I think those sorts of comments are untrue, unnecessary
and insulting to the members of the Board who do, I believe, try very hard
to do what benefits the projects and the community and try I imagine very
hard to anticipate and understand the goals and beliefs of our community -
and not just those few of us who post to Foundation-l. Confrontational
statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of those
people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided. We can't
require you to assume good faith on this list or outside of en.wikipedia,
but you might take under advisement the fact that it would be a good idea
nonetheless.

Nathan

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 [at] gmail>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Jason Safoutin
> > You are the board of trustees. And as I see it, the board has done
> > nothing but abuse the word 'trustee'. They have made, as a whole, no
> > attempt to get any community input on anything from this, to Kaltura.
> > The constantly leave the communities out of the loop and make decisions
> > with total disregard as to what we might think.
>
> I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here,
> but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some
> competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is
> just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and
> financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or
> blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of
> participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level
> of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
>
> Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select
> group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an
> old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and
> that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's
> highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they
> can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is
> highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not
> want should be ignored off-hand.
>
> Since emails, complaints, discussion have done nothing to turn the
> creeping tide of secrecy and separation on the part of the current
> board, perhaps the best recourse is for community members to speak
> with their votes. Board members who have been acting in a way contra
> to the will and benefit of the community should be systematically
> removed, and replaced with community members who are actually
> dedicated to this community. Most voters will probably agree that
> board members without such dedication do not belong on the board
> beyond the next election.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Apr 28, 2008, 9:47 AM

Post #60 of 189 (463 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 [at] yahoo> wrote:
>
>> Delirium wrote:
>> > For the record, this is the current chapter distribution:
>> > Europe - 9
>> > East Asia - 2
>> > Middle East - 1
>> > South America - 1
>> > Australia - 1
>> >
>> > -Mark
>>
>> You are absolutely correct Mark.
>> But you may not have understood that chapters will not necessarily elect
>> chapter members ?
>> I even have the weakness to think that they will have the wisdom to
>> avoid that trap ;-)
>>
> Hey, the method of chapter selection hasn't been determined yet,
> right? So the chapters could just choose to use the same election
> process as the rest of the elected members. Or would the board forbid
> that?

That sounds like a throwback to the very first elections that brought
Anthere and Angela to the Board. One of the seats would somehow have
been linked to formal membership, but that proved to be impractical so
the two positions became indistinguishable from each other.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

mbimmler at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:48 AM

Post #61 of 189 (462 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so
> quickly to revolutionary ultimatums. The board has not 'betrayed the
> community' - it simply took a step, regarding its own composition, that
> took
> a portion of the community by surprise. Many would have liked to hear
> about
> these changes in advance, to discuss them and potentially influence
> alterations to the changes before they became fait accompli. This doesn't
> translate to "We must eliminate the Board and start over with people who
> don't totally ignore the will of the community."
>
> As a matter of fact, I think those sorts of comments are untrue,
> unnecessary
> and insulting to the members of the Board who do, I believe, try very hard
> to do what benefits the projects and the community and try I imagine very
> hard to anticipate and understand the goals and beliefs of our community -
> and not just those few of us who post to Foundation-l. Confrontational
> statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of
> those
> people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided. We
> can't
> require you to assume good faith on this list or outside of en.wikipedia,
> but you might take under advisement the fact that it would be a good idea
> nonetheless.
>
>
In one word: Thank you.
I absolutely agree with your comments and I'm presumptuous enough to say
that probably many of us who expressed criticism of the board's
'consultation strategy' on this point are not trying to make a motion of no
confidence out of this affair.
It was regrettable that this changes came as a surprise to most people I
know and I hope that it will be done somehow otherwise next time.
But I still trust the board and I consider all these calls to arms that we
see here now rather preposterous (if I may use another of these pre-...
words).

Michael
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

ktc at ktchan

Apr 28, 2008, 9:52 AM

Post #62 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 09:36 -0700, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Unfortunately, we can't remove most of them. Maybe the Board should not have the power to modify bylaws.

Erm, considering the Wikimedia Foundation does not have any members, can
you tell me who you propose then that be given the rights to modify the
Bylaws? The employees?

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

bradp.wmf at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:52 AM

Post #63 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the
community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it
or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality
or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the
Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership
of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act
in its best interests. The Board members are themselves obligated under the
law to act in the best interests of the Foundation. That as a matter of
convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term
means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for
Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement*
to that process or results. As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership
organization.

Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated
and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?" I
suggest you be pragmatic. You do not have any means of grabbing the reins
of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything
except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter,
if you choose, or to speak up in some forum. You don't have a "right" to
vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an
election to fill Board seats.

I have always held that position that a Board composed of wise, talented
people with a wealth of experience is the better form of corporate
governance. Self-selecting fiduciary boards have served charitable and
educational organizations honorably and well for over four centuries.

Stop whining and ask yourself if you have the objective qualifications to
lead an international organization. If not, work on obtaining the skills to
be such a leader, if you choose. Toiling on a project is neither a
necessary nor sufficient condition to be a Board member at WMF.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 [at] gmail>
wrote:

>
> I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here,
> but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some
> competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is
> just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and
> financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or
> blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of
> participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level
> of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
>
> Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select
> group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an
> old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and
> that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's
> highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they
> can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is
> highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not
> want should be ignored off-hand.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:56 AM

Post #64 of 189 (462 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

2008/4/28 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler [at] gmail>:

> I absolutely agree with your comments and I'm presumptuous enough to say
> that probably many of us who expressed criticism of the board's
> 'consultation strategy' on this point are not trying to make a motion of no
> confidence out of this affair.
> It was regrettable that this changes came as a surprise to most people I
> know and I hope that it will be done somehow otherwise next time.
> But I still trust the board and I consider all these calls to arms that we
> see here now rather preposterous (if I may use another of these pre-...
> words).

I figure the board's doing a scary and frequently difficult and
tedious job, so am quite happy to assume stuff will be clarified after
the fact if it isn't before. I'm sure it will be soon enough :-)

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wknight8111 at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:58 AM

Post #65 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
> I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so
> quickly to revolutionary ultimatums.

Nothing I said was revolutionary nor an ultimatum. I said, as has
always been true, that if the community disapproves of the performance
of certain board members it will become evident in the next board
election. I said this precisely to prevent further devolving here on
foundation-l: Emails are ignored, so save your opinions for the next
election. All our opinions can be heard then.

> Confrontational
> statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of those
> people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided.

I didn't say the entire board lacked commitment, and I didn't say that
any one particular member of the board did. Maybe all board members
are perfectly committed to our community. The general opinion on all
these things will become evident before too long.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geo.plrd at yahoo

Apr 28, 2008, 10:03 AM

Post #66 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Giving the community the finger generally does not lead to a happy community. The volunteers are the reason why we have Wikimedia, not the other way around.

----- Original Message ----
From: Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf [at] gmail>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:52:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the
community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it
or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality
or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the
Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership
of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act
in its best interests.� The Board members are themselves obligated under the
law to act in the best interests of the Foundation.� That as a matter of
convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term
means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for
Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement*
to that process or results.� As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership
organization.

Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated
and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?"� I
suggest you be pragmatic.� You do not have any means of grabbing the reins
of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything
except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter,
if you choose, or to speak up in some forum.� You don't have a "right" to
vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an
election to fill Board seats.

I have always held that position that a Board composed of wise, talented
people with a wealth of experience is the better form of corporate
governance.� Self-selecting fiduciary boards have served charitable and
educational organizations honorably and well for over four centuries.

Stop whining and ask yourself if you have the objective qualifications to
lead an international organization.� If not, work on obtaining the skills to
be such a leader, if you choose.� Toiling on a project is neither a
necessary nor sufficient condition to be a Board member at WMF.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 [at] gmail>
wrote:

>
> I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here,
> but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some
> competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is
> just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and
> financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or
> blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of
> participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level
> of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
>
> Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select
> group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an
> old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and
> that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's
> highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they
> can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is
> highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not
> want should be ignored off-hand.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geo.plrd at yahoo

Apr 28, 2008, 10:04 AM

Post #67 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

That was just a random musing. I simply meant that having the ability to write your own term is generally a COI.

----- Original Message ----
From: Kwan Ting Chan <ktc [at] ktchan>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:52:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 09:36 -0700, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Unfortunately, we can't remove most of them. Maybe the Board should not have the power to modify bylaws.

Erm, considering the Wikimedia Foundation does not have any members, can
you tell me who you propose then that be given the rights to modify the
Bylaws? The employees?

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
� - Heinrich Heine

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geo.plrd at yahoo

Apr 28, 2008, 10:08 AM

Post #68 of 189 (462 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

I do also appreciate the service that the Board has provided. Its just that this recent move seems like a slap in the face to volunteers. The fact that the Advisory Board was not consulted is also worrying. If they aren't being asked to advise, why do we have them? �

----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler [at] gmail>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:48:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so
> quickly to revolutionary ultimatums. The board has not 'betrayed the
> community' - it simply took a step, regarding its own composition, that
> took
> a portion of the community by surprise. Many would have liked to hear
> about
> these changes in advance, to discuss them and potentially influence
> alterations to the changes before they became fait accompli. This doesn't
> translate to "We must eliminate the Board and start over with people who
> don't totally ignore the will of the community."
>
> As a matter of fact, I think those sorts of comments are untrue,
> unnecessary
> and insulting to the members of the Board who do, I believe, try very hard
> to do what benefits the projects and the community and try I imagine very
> hard to anticipate and understand the goals and beliefs of our community -
> and not just those few of us who post to Foundation-l. Confrontational
> statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of
> those
> people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided. We
> can't
> require you to assume good faith on this list or outside of en.wikipedia,
> but you might take under advisement the fact that it would be a good idea
> nonetheless.
>
>
In one word: Thank you.
I absolutely agree with your comments and I'm presumptuous enough to say
that probably many of us who expressed criticism of the board's
'consultation strategy' on this point are not trying to make a motion of no
confidence out of this affair.
It was regrettable that this changes came as a surprise to most people I
know and I hope that it will be done somehow otherwise next time.
But I still trust the board and I consider all these calls to arms that we
see here now rather preposterous (if I may use another of these pre-...
words).

Michael
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgoodmanny at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 10:09 AM

Post #69 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Being pragmatic then:
1) trying to convince the existing board that they've made a mistake.
2) voting (with respect to at least the positions that remain open to
be voted on ) for candidates who ware willing to state they oppose
this measure and will work on the board to reverse it.
3) make plain our total repugnance for officers of the foundation who
talk about the people who create Wikipedia as not having or deserving
the right to the running of the project.
4) "Self-selecting fiduciary boards" are a well established way of
preventing organisations from reflecting the will of their actual
constituency. In traditional organisations, where the effective
resources comes from the largest contributors, they serve that
interest. However, the effect of the funding on the success of
Wikipedia is very small as compared to the effect of the work, & the
board should reflect this.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf [at] gmail> wrote:
> It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the
> community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it
> or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality
> or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the
> Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership
> of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act
> in its best interests. The Board members are themselves obligated under the
> law to act in the best interests of the Foundation. That as a matter of
> convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term
> means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for
> Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement*
> to that process or results. As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership
> organization.
>
> Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated
> and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?" I
> suggest you be pragmatic. You do not have any means of grabbing the reins
> of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything
> except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter,
> if you choose, or to speak up in some forum. You don't have a "right" to
> vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an
> election to fill Board seats.
>
> I have always held that position that a Board composed of wise, talented
> people with a wealth of experience is the better form of corporate
> governance. Self-selecting fiduciary boards have served charitable and
> educational organizations honorably and well for over four centuries.
>
> Stop whining and ask yourself if you have the objective qualifications to
> lead an international organization. If not, work on obtaining the skills to
> be such a leader, if you choose. Toiling on a project is neither a
> necessary nor sufficient condition to be a Board member at WMF.
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 [at] gmail>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't necessarily want to be as confrontational as Jason is here,
> > but I agree with his sentiment completely. The board is not some
> > competely separate entity from the community at large. The board is
> > just another group of volunteers who want to help manage the legal and
> > financial logistics of this foundation, instead of writing content or
> > blasting vandals, or whatever. Volunteers decide their own level of
> > participation, and such decisions are not demonstrations pf any level
> > of quality, commitment, expertise or intelligence.
> >
> > Maybe the current board forgets it's own humble origins as a select
> > group of highly-motivated community members. I would like to cite an
> > old adage that says "It is never likely that you alone are correct and
> > that everybody else is wrong." Taken in context here, I think it's
> > highly unlikely that the board is so aloof and so omniscient that they
> > can safely disregard the opinions of the community at large. Or, it is
> > highly unlikely that what the community at large wants or does not
> > want should be ignored off-hand.
> >
> > --Andrew Whitworth
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

jason.safoutin at wikinewsie

Apr 28, 2008, 10:10 AM

Post #70 of 189 (464 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

foundation-l-request [at] lists wrote:
>
> In one word: Thank you.
> I absolutely agree with your comments and I'm presumptuous enough to say
> that probably many of us who expressed criticism of the board's
> 'consultation strategy' on this point are not trying to make a motion of no
> confidence out of this affair.
> It was regrettable that this changes came as a surprise to most people I
> know and I hope that it will be done somehow otherwise next time.
> But I still trust the board and I consider all these calls to arms that we
> see here now rather preposterous (if I may use another of these pre-...
> words).
>
> Michael
>
>
>
See this is where I get troubled. All I ever hear is maybe next time,
maybe next time. How many next times will it take? Honestly of the 2
1/2+ years I have been around, there have been too many 'next times.'

Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 10:21 AM

Post #71 of 189 (460 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

2008/4/28 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd [at] yahoo>:

> Giving the community the finger generally does not lead to a happy community. The volunteers are the reason why we have Wikimedia, not the other way around.

I think it's a bit early not to assume good faith as the normal course
of things.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bryan.tongminh at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 10:25 AM

Post #72 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd [at] yahoo> wrote:
> Unfortunately, we can't remove most of them. Maybe the Board should not have the power to modify bylaws.
>
Then who should?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bradp.wmf at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 11:43 AM

Post #73 of 189 (461 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Thanks David. :)

I will go even further - let's take your example as a hypothetical - that
the board *is* giving the community the finger (which is a false
characterization I vehemently disagree with) but let's assume it. So what
do you do then? WMF exists. Those who would consider themselves "the
community" whatever that means, do not have any legitimate power to do
anything about it, but presumably scream and vote with their time, head for
the exits, etc. What they/you cannot do is change anything at the board
level. Or change bylaws. Or do anything external to WMF to cause the board
to do anything on a governance level.

Look instead at the fact that (i) the Board is expanding and determining how
additional positions will be filled and (ii) be pleased that my position has
not carried the day, and the Board is allowing community-elected and
chapter-selected seats rather than just appointing other so-called
"outsiders" with demonstrated competence at running large international
organizations.

If you think for an instant that the Board is not mindful of the thousands
of people who volunteer, you are, simply, sorely mistaken.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> 2008/4/28 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd [at] yahoo>:
>
> > Giving the community the finger generally does not lead to a happy
> community. The volunteers are the reason why we have Wikimedia, not the
> other way around.
>
>
> I think it's a bit early not to assume good faith as the normal course
> of things.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

h.schlottmann at gmx

Apr 28, 2008, 11:51 AM

Post #74 of 189 (464 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

Chad wrote:

> In case you all have forgotten, you work for the community.

Flat wrong. Both, the projects and the staff, work for the idea of free
knowledge. The staff is not working for the editors.

Ciao Henning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgoodmanny at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 12:17 PM

Post #75 of 189 (463 views)
Permalink

Re: Board-announcement: Board Restructuring [In reply to]

The staff of this particular project is indeed working in order to
facilitate the work of the editors in the project. There is no other
reason for their role. This facilitation is extremely important, and i
do not want to appear to downgrade it. We do need some monetary and
legal and technical support and coordination, and, at our size, it
cannot be in practice done on a purely voluntary basis, but requires a
few dedicated professionals.

The board, however, are not the staff. They exists as a legally
responsible body to make the official formulation of policy--for the
benefit of the project. The project itself is the work of the editors
(in the broad sense, including the programmers and so forth). To the
extent they do so in accordance with the aims of the people actually
working on the project, they do it correctly., The best people to
determine this are not themselves, but those who are doing the actual
work and development.

On 4/28/08, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann [at] gmx> wrote:
> Chad wrote:
>
> > In case you all have forgotten, you work for the community.
>
> Flat wrong. Both, the projects and the staff, work for the idea of free
> knowledge. The staff is not working for the editors.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads