The board recently agreed to expand the board up to 11 people.
Some of the board seats will be up for elections, including mine. I am
not sure yet how many seats will be available, this will be clarified in
the following weeks. But it seems clear there will be at least 3 seats.
I wanted to give you a pre-position on this matter.
In june 2008, I will complete 4 years on the board, including 1 year and
a half as chair.
I stopped working just 2 years ago, immediately before the birth of my
third child. I now wish to officially be in activity again (meaning:
working for a salary :-)). A month and a half ago, I registered myself
as looking for a job (http://www.anpe.fr/) and am every week meeting
professionals to work on my professional project.
And to be fair, I am not really sure how compatible it is to manage
family/WMF/job.
I also think I may be able to help the projects by continuing my
activity within Wikimedia France and indicated some time ago, my
interest for being a candidate at the next board election (january or
february 08).
As such, I would be happy to start the discussion as to who would be
interested/willing joining the board of WMF (as appointed or as
elected), and who would be potentially interested in the role of chair
in the future.
Meanwhile, I go on holidays :-) (good food, good wine, cheers, presents,
compliments and generally good will and good feelings)
Cheers
Ant
In a message dated 12/29/2007 12:42:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
erik(a)wikimedia.org writes:
- Do the current criteria for Board membership -- making a lot of
edits on the projects, being a valued community member, being elected
by your peers -- help to constitute a Board that can serve this
function?
- If they do not, how does expanding the Board with more community
members and, simultaneously, creating a community-run Wikicouncil help
us when it comes to learning lessons from the last year regarding
corporate governance?
Just for purposes of clarification, can you please explain how this
coincides with your election statements:
"This is why I have always insisted that the majority of the Board of
Trustees should be made of (preferably elected) members of the community. It was
partially my insistence that led to this principle being written into the
_Foundation Bylaws_ (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws) ."
and
"I would like to see our Board expanded to nine members. Jimmy has indicated
that he would not mind his status to be that of an elected member at some
point, which would mean that we could have 4 appointed members in compliance
with the present bylaws. This allows us to bring seasoned professionals from
outside our project communities on board, to assist in matters such as
fundraising, financial oversight, governance policy, and so forth. That does not mean
that these same skills should not also be present in elected Board members.
*But the community will, probably, typically focus less on these skills and
more on the content of their platforms, their conduct and standing in the
community, their cultural and intellectual background, the principles they
espouse, and so forth.* These factors, on the other hand, will be less important
for appointed Board members from outside the community. And this is exactly
what I see reflected in the existing Wikimedia Board of Trustees."
In other words, you won the election, fair and square, campaigning on a
platform advocating a community-majority board. This is in contrast with me, for
instance, who campaigned on a platform advocating a professional board. Are
you saying that since the election, less that six months ago, you have
rejected your platform and adopted my position?
On the one hand, I am glad that you have come around to my way of thinking.
On the other hand, I am a bit surprised by this apparent inconsistency in
your position and, even more so, by what could be conceived as a failure to
represent the interests of your constituents as promised in your platform.
Peace, love, and professionalism,
Danny
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
In a message dated 12/30/2007 7:36:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
On Dec 30, 2007 7:33 AM, <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
> And you did not reject it because of your previous commitment to a
six-month
> waiting period, which was voted on unanimously by the Board just 2 and a
> half weeks earlier. (Kat voted for six months for Board-->Staff, but seems
to
> have rejected Staff-->Board).
>
It wasn't voted on, as a resolution wasn't yet drafted. "Resolutions
to be drafted post-meeting on BoardWiki by Erik. [After consultation
with Mike Godwin, will be drafted as a Bylaws revision.]"
That is exactly what I find worrying. Erik was charged with drafting the
resolution, yet his delay in doing so seemingly accrued him financial benefit as
paid staff. Since that is obviously not the case, I am simply trying to
clarify the timeline here.
I am also curious as to when Florence, as Chair, was approached by Sue
regarding Erik's appointment. Since Sue was effectively removing one of the Board
members charged with her oversight, it would have behoved her to obtain
Florence's approval before approaching Erik.
Danny
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
Dear all,
the current stewards policy is already somewhat outdated, and not
compatible with the changed situation. Therefore I took the initiative
to rewrite the policy, like some others. For now I would like to draw
your attention to the stewards policy rewriting proposal. Mainly
current stewards have helped rewriting this, and I would like people
to check it out and mention it on the talkpage if they disagree, or
feel something is missing. Please do not edit directly any more,
unless spelling etc, so that the overview is the best. Thanks for
understanding.
*Stewards policy
Please give your remarks now on the talkpage:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Rewriting/Stewards_policy
Also some other policies are going through (re)writing.
See also: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Rewriting
Best regards,
Lodewijk / effeietsanders
On Monday Dec 17, Sue Gardner and I gave a presentation at Stanford's
Open Source Lab about Wikimedia & the Wikiversity project. This was
also an opportunity to meet some Wikimedians and friends of Wikimedia,
including Luca de Alfaro, Philipp Birken, and Michael Dale.
You can view a video here:
http://blip.tv/file/551254
Best,
Erik
Nathan wrote:
> From the comments by Erik and Florence, it seems like the overall role
> of the ED is still up in the air from the point of view of the staff
> and Board. The role of the ED (particularly when you are talking, as
> Erik is, about defining areas of expertise and ownership of strategic
> vision) is something that should be established *before* you hire an
> ED and a deputy, because before you decide how do you know what you
> want?
Not really.
First, the deputy role is defined by the ED. So, not under control of
the board. That's up to Sue. I am not aware of any disagreement over the
deputy job description itself.
As for the description of the role of the ED, I do not think there is a
lot of major disagreement really.
There is disagreement perhaps on the extent of the freedom we should
allocate.
But ultimately, as the bylaws make it very clear, "All corporate powers
shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and
affairs of the Foundation shall be managed under, the direction of the
Board of Trustees."
Erik is possibly defending a position where the ED would apparently be
given full authority, which is not compatible with the bylaws.
Now, Erik might disagree with this, but given that he is neither ED, nor
board member... I really appreciate his feedback and his thoughts, as
always. As I do appreciate any of you feedback and thoughts. And am
really happy of this healthy discussion.
> I'm glad that Erik is invested enough in these changes to write pages
> of comprehensive proposals, but I think it makes it difficult for a
> thorough review. I'd suggest you isolate different areas and review
> them separately first - i.e. a Wikicouncil and the role of the board,
> the role of the staff vs. the Board in an open debate, the purview of
> the ED etc. as individual items for consideration.
>
> I'd also like to point out that the byplay is something I at least
> miss, and it detracts (in my view) from a meaningful debate. I'm
> speaking to the inside-speak between Danny, Florence and Erik in this
> case - particularly where Florence alludes that constraints have been
> imposed on her ability to express her opinion openly, which is hard to
> imagine or justify as she is Chair of the Board.
>
> Nathan
Does not make it less real :-(
Can it be clarified as to the status of the Right to Vanish on WMF and local
projects. Is this a right given by WMF in goodwill?
Related link
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish
Thank you,
Mercury
For those who read Wikinews we covered the U.K. Queen's Honours list here,
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Celebrities_draw_attention_on_2008_UK_New_Year_H
onours_list
Due to a little digging and crawling email I have an opportunity to put
three or four questions to Sir Ian "Gandalf" McKellen, if we can elicit
expansive enough comments it will hopefully be a mini-interview.
Being the (alleged) season of goodwill I'd like to throw the floor open to
all comers, Wikinewsie or not. Obviously the focus has to some extent to be
on the CH award - but if there's any specific detail missing from his
Wikipedia biography we could test the limits of Wikinews' citeability.
Brian McNeil
In a message dated 12/30/2007 6:41:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Anthere9(a)yahoo.com writes:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/October_6-7%2C_2007
Thank you for posting the board minutes. It was very helpful toward
understanding the inner workings of the Foundation.
There are, however, a few things I do not understand and perhaps you can
clarify:
4) Employees elected to the Board
Brief discussion about whether there should be a waiting period for former
employees / former Board members interested in running in a Board election or
becoming part of the staff.
* Jan-Bart, Erik, Frieda, Florence: symmetrical 6 months waiting period
1. I suppose this was in response to my election bid, shortly after
resigning. I am curious as to how four board members, including Erik, could support
this, and yet Erik could be appointed to a paid position just two months
later, with no waiting period whatsoever.
2. It seems that Erik, as a Board member helped to review Sue's performance
as a member of the ED Committee. I can only assume that the idea of
appointing him Deputy Director and the mechanics of obtaining him a work visa had not
yet begun. Has he since been replaced on that Committee, and on the Committee
to find a Treasurer for the Board?
Danny
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
Thank you for the clarifications.
Danny
In a message dated 12/30/2007 9:48:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Anthere9(a)yahoo.com writes:
daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
> I am also curious as to when Florence, as Chair, was approached by Sue
> regarding Erik's appointment. Since Sue was effectively removing one of
the Board
> members charged with her oversight, it would have behoved her to obtain
> Florence's approval before approaching Erik.
I was approached 30th of october. I informed the board the following
day, as it seemed to me mandatorily that they be informed as soon as
possible, given the potential risks of conflict of interest.
I was in favor of asking him to resign at that point, but some perceived
unfair to have him resign with lack of certainty over visa obtention.
>2. It seems that Erik, as a Board member helped to review Sue's
>performance
>as a member of the ED Committee. I can only assume that the idea of
>appointing him Deputy Director and the mechanics of obtaining him a
>work visa had not
>yet begun. Has he since been replaced on that Committee, and on the
>Committee
>to find a Treasurer for the Board?
Erik was immediately removed from the ED evaluation committee by its
chair (Jan-Bart) after I informed the board. Erik has not yet been
officially replaced on this committee.
I asked Erik to recuse himself on some resolutions, such as the
Executive Director one.
Erik went on being chair of the treasurer search committee until his
resignation from the board. Soon before his resignation, he (not the
committee) submitted a recommandation with regards to the search to the
entire board. Since then, the treasurer search committee is made of only
two people, with the support of Mona. I have made a follow up on the new
candidates just before Christmas. Otherwise, issue is pending.
Ant
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)