Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

mgodwin at wikimedia

Apr 28, 2008, 5:35 PM

Post #101 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

Geoffrey writes:

> Mike, the new change has made it?so a majority is unelected.

The Bylaws don't require that a majority be elected. They require that
a majority come from the community, as defined by the Board. In
effect, the Board has now expanded the definition of "community" to
include both the chapters and Jimmy. If Jimmy chooses to serve, the
community seats dominate 6-4. If Jimmy leaves or is not reappointed,
the community seats have a 5-to-4 majority.

And, of course, it is entirely possible that community members may be
appointed to the expertise spots, as someone else has pointed out.

--Mike

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

brianna.laugher at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 5:38 PM

Post #102 of 189 (447 views)
Permalink

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

2008/4/29 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd [at] yahoo>:
> First, the Board sent the ball on Wikicouncil back to the Community, then the Board made community elected seats a minority.

? It was not exactly clear that the Wikicouncil concept *as presented
to the Board at that time* was something that was supported by "the
Community" at large. They have expressed support for the concept, but
not that particular instantiation. I am sure that if they had accepted
it there would probably be *more* outrage! (possibly directed slightly
differently)

Secondly seats for community members are still a majority: 5 + Jimmy.
If a vote goes 5-5, it fails. So there is no "power bloc of
outsiders".
If you are really concerned that "the chapters" are going to somehow
choose the wrong people, then why not pipe up with suggestions about
what "the right way" would be.

> Because of our principles, we attract a lot of people who are suspicious of authoritarian structures. This move seems kind of authoritarian.

Yeah, so getting outraged by default - regardless of the merit of a
proposal - is definitely a good move!

Put it this way, throwing a hissy fit is not a good argument that the
community should have more input. We should demonstrate we deserve
more input by making that input reasoned and sensible.

Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has
apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.

regards
Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

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

aphaia at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 5:57 PM

Post #103 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher [at] gmail> wrote:
> Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has
> apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.

I am not happy to see it have come as a surprise and think it would
been much better the community have been asked for opinion before
hearing "here is our new resolution, we announce so-and-so".

Jan-Bart announced and made a brief comment on IRC (on the list later perhaps?)
Florence has apologized on the list.
Domas commented, even if it rather sounds sarcastic and replies only
to a particular sarcastic reaction.
But still, more input will be appreciated.

I'd love to hear other Board members' inputs too. I don't feel
betrayed but feel lack of communications, and very concerned about
that. Also I feel I need to give more thought on this issue to say
something, thereforee not in a mood of blessing at that moment. I
think at least I need more input to consider its meaning and
possibilities.

--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

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

geo.plrd at yahoo

Apr 28, 2008, 7:03 PM

Post #104 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

A majority is 50% plus 1, correct? If the board is being expanded to 10, thats half, not a majority.

----- Original Message ----
From: Kwan Ting Chan <ktc [at] ktchan>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:57:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 16:39 -0700, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Mike, the new change has made it so a majority is unelected.

You are assuming the Chapters decide its 2 seats are filled with a
method other than some form of election, which may or may not be true.

The Board present the new structure as the holders of a majority of
seats to have come from the community (3 direct election, 2 chapters, &
Jimbo), not that the majority will be elected, which isn't the case even
currently.

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, 7:08 PM

Post #105 of 189 (443 views)
Permalink

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

All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was in essence a working group.
My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill them.

----- Original Message ----
From: Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher [at] gmail>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:38:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

2008/4/29 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd [at] yahoo>:
> First, the Board sent the ball on Wikicouncil back to the Community, then the Board made community elected seats a minority.

? It was not exactly clear that the Wikicouncil concept *as presented
to the Board at that time* was something that was supported by "the
Community" at large. They have expressed support for the concept, but
not that particular instantiation. I am sure that if they had accepted
it there would probably be *more* outrage! (possibly directed slightly
differently)

Secondly seats for community members are still a majority: 5 + Jimmy.
If a vote goes 5-5, it fails. So there is no "power bloc of
outsiders".
If you are really concerned that "the chapters" are going to somehow
choose the wrong people, then why not pipe up with suggestions about
what "the right way" would be.

>� Because of our principles, we attract a lot of people who are suspicious of authoritarian structures. This move seems kind of authoritarian.

Yeah, so getting outraged by default - regardless of the merit of a
proposal - is definitely a good move!

Put it this way, throwing a hissy fit is not a good argument that the
community should have more input. We should demonstrate we deserve
more input by making that input reasoned and sensible.

Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has
apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.

regards
Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
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, 7:10 PM

Post #106 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

And in regard to the right way, I will be working on a model of community governance that I hope will be a compromise between VC and CWF.

----- Original Message ----
From: Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher [at] gmail>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:38:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring

2008/4/29 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd [at] yahoo>:
> First, the Board sent the ball on Wikicouncil back to the Community, then the Board made community elected seats a minority.

? It was not exactly clear that the Wikicouncil concept *as presented
to the Board at that time* was something that was supported by "the
Community" at large. They have expressed support for the concept, but
not that particular instantiation. I am sure that if they had accepted
it there would probably be *more* outrage! (possibly directed slightly
differently)

Secondly seats for community members are still a majority: 5 + Jimmy.
If a vote goes 5-5, it fails. So there is no "power bloc of
outsiders".
If you are really concerned that "the chapters" are going to somehow
choose the wrong people, then why not pipe up with suggestions about
what "the right way" would be.

>� Because of our principles, we attract a lot of people who are suspicious of authoritarian structures. This move seems kind of authoritarian.

Yeah, so getting outraged by default - regardless of the merit of a
proposal - is definitely a good move!

Put it this way, throwing a hissy fit is not a good argument that the
community should have more input. We should demonstrate we deserve
more input by making that input reasoned and sensible.

Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has
apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.

regards
Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
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

wikimail at inbox

Apr 28, 2008, 7:11 PM

Post #107 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> Geoffrey writes:
>
> > Mike, the new change has made it?so a majority is unelected.
>
> The Bylaws don't require that a majority be elected. They require that
> a majority come from the community, as defined by the Board.

In any case, the bylaws are being amended, right? Has the new wording
been worked out? Is the part about "Trustees shall be staggered, so
that the terms of fewer than one-half of the Trustees expire in each
year", which is impossible to implement in the first place (you can't
have two-year terms and have *fewer* than one-half of Trustees elected
each year), going to be modified and/or eliminated? Is the community
going to get to see the new bylaws before they're voted on?

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

jwales at wikia

Apr 28, 2008, 7:23 PM

Post #108 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Mike, the new change has made it�so a majority is unelected.

Not by my count.

3 elected directly on-wiki
2 elected via chapters mechanism

4 appointed
1 me

that makes 5 elected, 5 appointed

It also makes 6 community, 4 potentially "outside"

I don't see this as having any impact on the overall community control
of the board other than perhaps strengthening it by giving due weight to
the chapter structures.

--Jimbo

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

jwales at wikia

Apr 28, 2008, 7:28 PM

Post #109 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

Mike Godwin wrote:
> And, of course, it is entirely possible that community members may be
> appointed to the expertise spots, as someone else has pointed out.

Indeed, I think the board is essentially unanimous (though I do not
speak for anyone else of course) in desiring that if we can get
specialized expertise *and* a community member for one of the appointed
seats, all the better.

We have 2 of those right now: for legal matters, Michael Snow. For
technical matters, Domas.

I would not expect that to materially change in the future, although
with a 10 member board we now have "room" without affecting the
community nature of the board materially to bring in a treasurer (like
Stuart) and similar.

--Jimbo

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

swatjester at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 7:35 PM

Post #110 of 189 (445 views)
Permalink

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

That's assuming the 2 chapters seats are elected. AFAICT nothing says
that they need to be.

You have 3 elected. 2 undefined. 4 appointed. 1 for life.

Even if both chapter seats are elected, it still does not give a
majority of elected seats. Even if both the chapter seats are
considered "community", it requires Jimmy's seat to be considered
"community" to create a community majority. Considering that Jimmy's
seat disappears if he ever decides to resign/quit, that certainly
doesn't help. It also does not address any of the issues that have
been raised as to whether Jimmy adequately can represent the community
(especially based on backlash from his various actions on en.wp over
the past year). But any discussion of Jimmy's seat is really a non
issue, because it simply disappears if Jimmy ever decides to retire
from the board.

It takes fuzzy math and stretching of facts to spin this in anyway to
be a "strengthening" of the community. The only way the community can
actually be said to be strengthened in any way here is IF the chapter
seats remain elected, and from community members. That's yet uncertain
and the process to do so undefined, and even if it were to go through,
nothing prevents the chapters from changing it in the future.

So, I think the response that the community is being screwed here is
justified.

-Dan
On Apr 28, 2008, at 10:23 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>> Mike, the new change has made it�so a majority is unelected.
>
> Not by my count.
>
> 3 elected directly on-wiki
> 2 elected via chapters mechanism
>
> 4 appointed
> 1 me
>
> that makes 5 elected, 5 appointed
>
> It also makes 6 community, 4 potentially "outside"
>
> I don't see this as having any impact on the overall community control
> of the board other than perhaps strengthening it by giving due
> weight to
> the chapter structures.
>
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

ktc at ktchan

Apr 28, 2008, 7:41 PM

Post #111 of 189 (443 views)
Permalink

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

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 19:03 -0700, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> A majority is 50% plus 1, correct? If the board is being expanded to 10, thats half, not a majority.

They are counting Jimmy Wales as being from the community, in which case
it's 6:4. If and when Jimbo cease to be on the Board, it'd be 5:4.

KTC

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

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

aphaia at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 8:03 PM

Post #112 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

A bit OT ...

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales [at] wikia> wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
> > And, of course, it is entirely possible that community members may be
> > appointed to the expertise spots, as someone else has pointed out.
>
> Indeed, I think the board is essentially unanimous (though I do not
> speak for anyone else of course) in desiring that if we can get
> specialized expertise *and* a community member for one of the appointed
> seats, all the better.
>
> We have 2 of those right now: for legal matters, Michael Snow. For
> technical matters, Domas.
>
> I would not expect that to materially change in the future, although
> with a 10 member board we now have "room" without affecting the
> community nature of the board materially to bring in a treasurer (like
> Stuart) and similar.

I'm rather stumbling Stuart seems not to be considered by anyone as
"coming from community". Anyone, including me (I simply don't know and
perhaps it would be a large part of reasons: our contribution areas
are not crossing over). But he edited at least since last October from
the current account. A guy who has been editing regularly, even in a
small number, cannot be yet recognized as a community member (while he
himself hasn't insisted to be as such, though) - and what is then the
community? In case ust editing is not qualified for belonging to it,
what we mean with the word "editing community"?

Not a criticism, I'm really stumbled.

--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

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

cimonavaro at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 8:47 PM

Post #113 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was in essence a working group.
> My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill them.

I would infact be curious to know if that was really the case.

While I agree with Lodewijk that it would be useful for
individual board members to be open about thier individual
views on the matter, equally I have to ask Lodewijk, EC and
company, if they would be prepared to present to the public
what the proposal they offered to the board (and was not
acted upon directly by them) was like?

So far we have had an interpretation by Jimbo about the
restructuring (an interpretation that does not clearly
express what his preference was within the internal
discussions, if any). And we have had an interpretation
by Mike Snow, somewhat circumspectly expressed, of both
the demurral of direct Board involvement with setting up
the council, and the restructuring of the board, again
with fairly light amount of personal views revealed.

Antheres opinions have revealed that some of the
discussion was somewhat vexing, but even she hasn't
really given specifics, leaving us to try and read
between the lines what her own views might have been
like, though promising to speak more on the matter
later, and clearly encouraging the others on the
board to give their side of the matter.

And while the people who were on the private group to
explore the setting up of the council have demanded
public explanations, they haven't themselves gone first
and revealed what they presented to the board, or how
their proposal was prepared, what conflicting views
were balanced and how.

Somehow the situation reminds me of a poker game with
both players asking the other guy to show their cards
first.

Yours

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

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

cimonavaro at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:01 PM

Post #114 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

Brianna Laugher wrote:

> Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has
> apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.

Actually in fact it would be untrue to say that personally I was
dissapointed by the surprise nature of the announcement. I was not,
nor am I yet. To my mind there is quite some virtue for even a
board to be bold and act decisively.

What *I* think is the real short-coming in this instance, is that
the decision did not come with more information on who were the
people who *had* the boldness to so act, and what their reasoning
was, and what the alternatives considered were, and who were their
proponents on the board.

The way this was done suggests that individuals on the board are
plenty bold to act, when they don't have to individually own up
to acting, and share their thoughts behind the acts publically.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

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

cimonavaro at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:16 PM

Post #115 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

Dan Rosenthal wrote:

> It takes fuzzy math and stretching of facts to spin this in anyway to
> be a "strengthening" of the community. The only way the community can
> actually be said to be strengthened in any way here is IF the chapter
> seats remain elected, and from community members. That's yet uncertain
> and the process to do so undefined, and even if it were to go through,
> nothing prevents the chapters from changing it in the future.

Nothing but the eternal vigilance of members of our communities, you
mean?

>
> So, I think the response that the community is being screwed here is
> justified.

No, I really don't feel it is.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

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

jwales at wikia

Apr 28, 2008, 9:44 PM

Post #116 of 189 (446 views)
Permalink

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

Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> That's assuming the 2 chapters seats are elected. AFAICT nothing says
> that they need to be.
>
> You have 3 elected. 2 undefined. 4 appointed. 1 for life.

No one is appointed for life.

> But any discussion of Jimmy's seat is really a non
> issue, because it simply disappears if Jimmy ever decides to retire
> from the board.

And then we end up with a 5-4 community majority, at a minimum.

--Jimbo

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

samueljhenderson at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 9:47 PM

Post #117 of 189 (443 views)
Permalink

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

Personally, I am more disturbed by the justification for the change than by
the change itself.

From where I sit, it appears that the Board:
A. Decided to change its makeup in a way that would make only 30% of the
Board be directly elected by editors, which is what a "community seat" had
been understood to mean heretofore.
B. Decided to change the definition of "community seat" to include seats
appointed by third parties (the chapters, of which a vanishingly small
minority of editors are members), so as to make it appear that the principle
of a community majority was still being followed.

As far as "A" is concerned, I have no strong feeling. I don't really see
representation of the chapters as a particularly good or bad thing, just as
I don't see representation of the "community" as a good or bad thing. The
community, the chapters, the Foundation, and even the individual projects as
such, are all only a means to an end. If the Board had come out and said,
"we've decided it is in the best interests of the projects if a majority of
the board no longer is elected by the community, for reasons X Y and Z," I
personally wouldn't have had a big problem with it ... although, like
everyone else, I would still have preferred some open discussion before the
fact.

But "B," frankly, makes my blood boil. I find it hard to believe that
anyone above the age of 4 would be expected to fall for this kind of ploy.
More to the point, I am concerned that a climate of obfuscation and
doublespeak, even more than the existing climate of non-communication and
opacity, *will* cause long-term harm to the projects.

Frankly, people who refuse to respect the intelligence of Wikimedians -- by
which I mean, in this case, our ability to identify and reject BS -- really
shouldn't be involved in the management of the projects, regardless of
whether anyone now has the power to remove them or not. In this regard, I
sincerely hope that I and others have misinterpreted a substantial part of
this discussion.

Cheers,

Sam Henderson / Visviva (EN Wiktionary/Wikipedia)

>
> Why has this been simmering off in the wings? What are people
> actually upset about?
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert [at] gmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

sethf at sethf

Apr 28, 2008, 10:07 PM

Post #118 of 189 (448 views)
Permalink

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

> On Mon Apr 28 22:54:41 UTC 2008 David Gerard wrote
> Indeed it does. With signatories like Seth Finkelstein ...

A true ad-hominem argument.

My apologies to the organizers. If I had thought ahead enough
to realize that my spur-of-the-moment action might be used by the
Wikimedia Foundation's UK press contact to discredit the petition, I
wouldn't have signed it (I'm bad at politics). I'd un-sign if that
would help anything, but I suppose the damage is done now.

"A Man Can't Be Too Careful What He Signs These Days" [Stan Freberg]
(Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, about the Declaration of Independence)
J: Come on and put your name on the dotted line.
F: I got to be particular what I sign.
J: It's just a piece of paper.
F: Just a piece of paper, that's what you say.
J: Come on and put your signature on the list.
F: It looks to have a very subversive twist.
J: How silly to assume it; won't you "nom de plume" it today?
J: You're so skittish -- who possibly could care if you do?
F: The Un-British Activities Committee, that's who!

--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

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

putevod at mccme

Apr 28, 2008, 11:33 PM

Post #119 of 189 (443 views)
Permalink

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

I was on the group.

We did not even start the discussions.

The only thing we had was the resolution proposed by Lodewijk. It was
published, both here and on meta. I am sure you read it.

The expectation was we could be a group researching a possibility to
establish the VC, and, in case we would conclude the VC should be
established, come up with some recommendations how it could function and
draft some initial policy on VC.

Of course we would be prepared to present the results of the research in
public. Even more, there have been suggestions on this list (not supported
by me) that we debate actually in public.

The board has made it explicit it is not interested in this research.

So far, this has been the end of the story.

Cheers
Yaroslav

> Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>> All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was in
>> essence a working group.
>> My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill
>> them.
>
>
> I would infact be curious to know if that was really the case.
>
> While I agree with Lodewijk that it would be useful for
> individual board members to be open about thier individual
> views on the matter, equally I have to ask Lodewijk, EC and
> company, if they would be prepared to present to the public
> what the proposal they offered to the board (and was not
> acted upon directly by them) was like?
>
> So far we have had an interpretation by Jimbo about the
> restructuring (an interpretation that does not clearly
> express what his preference was within the internal
> discussions, if any). And we have had an interpretation
> by Mike Snow, somewhat circumspectly expressed, of both
> the demurral of direct Board involvement with setting up
> the council, and the restructuring of the board, again
> with fairly light amount of personal views revealed.
>
> Antheres opinions have revealed that some of the
> discussion was somewhat vexing, but even she hasn't
> really given specifics, leaving us to try and read
> between the lines what her own views might have been
> like, though promising to speak more on the matter
> later, and clearly encouraging the others on the
> board to give their side of the matter.
>
> And while the people who were on the private group to
> explore the setting up of the council have demanded
> public explanations, they haven't themselves gone first
> and revealed what they presented to the board, or how
> their proposal was prepared, what conflicting views
> were balanced and how.
>
> Somehow the situation reminds me of a poker game with
> both players asking the other guy to show their cards
> first.
>
> Yours
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

wikipedia at verizon

Apr 28, 2008, 11:50 PM

Post #120 of 189 (443 views)
Permalink

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

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Board elections, volunteer councils, chapter seats, or not. They
> are only decoration. The WMF was incorporated as something else
> than a membership organization. They keep the servers running and
> promote free knowledge. I think they do a pretty good job. But
> they're not a membership organization. If you want one, you need
> to create it yourself. Who's stopping you?
>
To be precise, the original bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation provided
for membership, but it was never implemented. The bylaws were
subsequently revised to drop the reference to membership as obsolete,
since the foundation had been operating for years without it. Some
months later, there was a bit of protest over the change, at least on
the English Wikipedia. One of the reasons to incorporate chapters in the
board selection process is because they are generally intended to be
membership organizations, so that option is effectively re-opened.
Membership can be administered more easily and with less overhead at the
chapter level than the global foundation could manage.

--Michael Snow

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

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 11:59 PM

Post #121 of 189 (447 views)
Permalink

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

Hoi,
There is a fairly famous Dutch quote saying "Read, it does not say what it
says". You come to the conclusion that the board is not interested in the
research into the establishment of a "volunteer council". I fail to read the
same thing. What I read is that the board gives ample room and encourages
the projects to set up its own governance.

I would find it encouraging if the original group proposing a "volunteer
council" just started to make a difference. This difference would be in
actually starting to organise project level organisation and procedures. You
are the group best suited for this because you already exist. The
composition of the group is such that it does reflect a large part of our
projects. Getting a similar group of people to where you currently are is
difficult.

Please get this act together and move forward !!
Thanks,
GerardM

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod [at] mccme>
wrote:

> I was on the group.
>
> We did not even start the discussions.
>
> The only thing we had was the resolution proposed by Lodewijk. It was
> published, both here and on meta. I am sure you read it.
>
> The expectation was we could be a group researching a possibility to
> establish the VC, and, in case we would conclude the VC should be
> established, come up with some recommendations how it could function and
> draft some initial policy on VC.
>
> Of course we would be prepared to present the results of the research in
> public. Even more, there have been suggestions on this list (not supported
> by me) that we debate actually in public.
>
> The board has made it explicit it is not interested in this research.
>
> So far, this has been the end of the story.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
>
> > Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> >> All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was
> in
> >> essence a working group.
> >> My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill
> >> them.
> >
> >
> > I would infact be curious to know if that was really the case.
> >
> > While I agree with Lodewijk that it would be useful for
> > individual board members to be open about thier individual
> > views on the matter, equally I have to ask Lodewijk, EC and
> > company, if they would be prepared to present to the public
> > what the proposal they offered to the board (and was not
> > acted upon directly by them) was like?
> >
> > So far we have had an interpretation by Jimbo about the
> > restructuring (an interpretation that does not clearly
> > express what his preference was within the internal
> > discussions, if any). And we have had an interpretation
> > by Mike Snow, somewhat circumspectly expressed, of both
> > the demurral of direct Board involvement with setting up
> > the council, and the restructuring of the board, again
> > with fairly light amount of personal views revealed.
> >
> > Antheres opinions have revealed that some of the
> > discussion was somewhat vexing, but even she hasn't
> > really given specifics, leaving us to try and read
> > between the lines what her own views might have been
> > like, though promising to speak more on the matter
> > later, and clearly encouraging the others on the
> > board to give their side of the matter.
> >
> > And while the people who were on the private group to
> > explore the setting up of the council have demanded
> > public explanations, they haven't themselves gone first
> > and revealed what they presented to the board, or how
> > their proposal was prepared, what conflicting views
> > were balanced and how.
> >
> > Somehow the situation reminds me of a poker game with
> > both players asking the other guy to show their cards
> > first.
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gordon.joly at pobox

Apr 29, 2008, 12:47 AM

Post #122 of 189 (451 views)
Permalink

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

>
>
>The chapters read this announcement for the first time right now. The
>chapters will be the ones defining this process. It is entirely up to
>them to decide how they will elect the two representatives. So, no
>details have been worked out.
>
>Ant

So all chapters must group together and elect two people? Is that correct?

I would have thought that chapters were concerned, by definition,
with local matters, rather than global matters. Forcing chapters to
get together in this may be in line with own governing documents.

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly [at] pobox///

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

gordon.joly at pobox

Apr 29, 2008, 12:58 AM

Post #123 of 189 (444 views)
Permalink

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

At 21:51 -0700 26/4/08, Michael Snow wrote:
>Nathan wrote:
>> I'll be curious to see how the various chapters determine amongst
>> themselves, without guidance for the board, how to select the two board
>> members allocated to them. Will they use the existing inter-chapter
>> structure, the Chapters Committee, to coordinate discussion? I'm also
>> curious as to the rationale for this change -- have the two chapter seats
>> been created because it was felt that the non-English project participants
>> have been under-represented in past elections? Do their members vote at
>> lower rate of participation than the English project members? I'm assuming
>> that all the folks who might participate in local chapters continue to have
>> a vote for the community seats, so will the net effect be that their
>> individual votes are the equivalent of some multiple of a vote from a
>> community member without a representative chapter?
>>
>The chapters, or at least those that are able to attend, have a
>previously scheduled meeting coming up in May.

What meeting in May?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee

> Hopefully they'll be able
>to get a start there on figuring out the process to pick the two board
>members they will select. Delphine as the Chapters Coordinator, along
>with Jan-Bart on behalf of the board, will be there to help as well.

They will indeed.

>As for the rationale, I would say that it's primarily a sense that the
>connection with the chapters needed to be stronger. The chapters are
>valuable partners for the global Wikimedia Foundation, but haven't been
>integrated into its governance as well as they could be. Sometimes this
>created the impression that the chapters are dependent organizations
>which can do things with the foundation's permission, without a way for
>them to have independent input. Giving chapters an explicit role in
>selecting board members recognizes them as stakeholders who rightfully
>should contribute to governing the foundation.
>
>That also ties in with my comments on the Volunteer Council proposal.
>Rather than create a new foundation-level structure and figure out what
>it might be good for, I think it was important to work better with the
>pieces that are already in place. By that I don't wish to discourage
>development of a council as a community-level structure.
>
>I don't think the issue of representation played a big factor in the
>restructuring, at least in the sense you're asking about. The elections
>have resulted in board members like Florence and Frieda; if anything the
>last election had people concerned that the rate of voter participation
>from the English projects was too low, until a "get-out-the-vote" drive
>materialized and presented its own issues. We are of course an
>international organization and I'm sure board selections will continue
>to reflect that somehow. The chapters can consider this along with other
>issues - the point is for the chapters to choose whom they believe to be
>the best available people, rather than falling into a trap of "we have
>to pick somebody from Portugal this year because we picked somebody from
>Japan last time."
>
>--Michael Snow
>

I sense a big change in the Foundation in the past few months (maybe
since the end of last year). The Foundation exists as a single body,
Wikipedians exist in their thousands. If the Foundation is trying to
listen, then maybe they should change the tune, since it does not
resonate.

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly [at] pobox///

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

gordon.joly at pobox

Apr 29, 2008, 1:05 AM

Post #124 of 189 (443 views)
Permalink

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

At 09:55 +0200 27/4/08, Delphine M�nard wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
> > I'll be curious to see how the various chapters determine amongst
>> themselves, without guidance for the board, how to select the two board
>> members allocated to them. Will they use the existing inter-chapter
>> structure, the Chapters Committee, to coordinate discussion?
>
>Just to clarify one point, the chapters committee is not an
>inter-chapter structure, but a committee appointed by the Board of
>Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, which lends a hand to the Board
>and chapters coordinator (myself) on the Foundation side, as well as
>helps new and existing chapters when it comes to chapters matters.
>
>Its main task in the past months has been the guidance of new would-be
>chapters in their first steps towards officialisation as Wikimedia
>chapters.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Delphine
>
>

If there is no "inter-chapter structure", how
will the Chapters vote on two people for the new
positions?

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly [at] pobox///

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

sebmol at gmail

Apr 29, 2008, 1:12 AM

Post #125 of 189 (443 views)
Permalink

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

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly [at] pobox> wrote:

> >Just to clarify one point, the chapters committee is not an
> >inter-chapter structure, but a committee appointed by the Board of
> >Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, which lends a hand to the Board
> >and chapters coordinator (myself) on the Foundation side, as well as
> >helps new and existing chapters when it comes to chapters matters.
> >
> >Its main task in the past months has been the guidance of new would-be
> >chapters in their first steps towards officialisation as Wikimedia
> >chapters.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Delphine
>
> If there is no "inter-chapter structure", how
> will the Chapters vote on two people for the new
> positions?
>

We make something up that works, by trial and error. Very much similar to
how Wikipedia works.

The way I see it is this: the foundation offers the chapters to select two
of the seats on the board of trustees. Now it's our (the chapters') job to
figure out what way of choosing the people for those two seats works best
for us. I see this as an outstanding opportunity for chapters to grow closer
together and improve communication among themselves. There's always been
talk about how valuable it would be for chapters to work closer together.
Now there's yet another good incentive to do so.

Sebastian
_______________________________________________
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