I mean any group where the members are not selected transparently.
----- Original Message ----
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 1:56:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Exactly. I for one will vigorously oppose any provisional group that operates in secrecy.
>
Then it comes down to what you mean by secrecy.
Having every last bit of conversation out in the public doesn't work
either. It's great to have this discussed on an open list, but that's
not an effective environment for synthesizing a solution, because the
level of noise and repetition gets too high. It often takes alternating
periods of public consultation, and quiet building. Analogous to the
scientific method, we develop hypotheses in small discussions, and test
those hypotheses by asking for public input. The process is repeated as
often as necessary. When we get close to agreement the public criticism
diminishes.
Take the relatively simple question of the size of the Volunteer
council. The suggested numbers have ranged from 20 to 500. We can
safely say that the optimal number is somewhere between those two. When
it is discussed by the Provisional Council its members come to an agree
settlement among themselves, and present reasons why they arrived at
that number. That is then ready to go back to the public for further
comment.
Similar processes will happen for other issues that cannot be so easily
defined.
Ec
> From: Ray Saintonge
>
> effe iets anders wrote:
>
>> although off topic here:
>> because it gives a signal by the board that they are willing.
>> because it gives a clear timeline
>> because it gives a little pressure
>> because this report would not be "just a report"
>>
>> BR, Lodewijk
>>
>>
> Exactly. The idea of a Wikicouncil has been knocking about for a few
> years already, and nothing has happened. Any group can get together to
> talk about anything, but that does not give any credibility to the
> report. If the Board passes a resolution to the effect that this is a
> worthwhile initiative it has a tremendous effect on the credibility of
> the report.
>
> It is not just about what some group wants to hash out. It is about
> what the community wants hashed out. Making the proposal public when it
> was has drawn a lot of comments from the community, including many
> constructive ones. Is it not more community minded to put out the
> proposal before debate, instead of after when it would be far more
> difficult to make changes?
>
> The name really doesn't matter. We could spend a lot of time on the
> semantic differences between "provisional council" and "steering
> committee" for a group that would most likely not exist by the end of
> the year. What difference would that make to any substantive result?
>
> Ec
>
>> 2008/3/17, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>> Effe, if the purpose of this initial group is only to issue a report on
>>> the need and viability and potential structure of a future group, why not
>>> just have it be called a steering committee of some sort, organize the
>>> people you think are helpful and interested, and issue a report with your
>>> names on it after talking to other people and forming up some more fully
>>> fleshed out ideas? Why go through the agita of a proposal and a debate and
>>> all the rest, when what you really seem to want is to get a group of people
>>> together to hash out what they want to propose - and then start the debate?
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>> On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> as I said, there might be no need, even by your definition. It all
>>>> depends
>>>> on the report and whether accepted by the board. So please do not act
>>>> hastely here and do not try to get everything done at once. Rome isn't
>>>> biult
>>>> on one day either.
>>>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
I like this proposal. It's like donations!
----- Original Message ----
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:12:56 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Advertising suggestion
A programme of encouraging people to put ads on sites as they wish and
contribute the money to WMF. Make this as easy as possible. Possibly
work with Google, etc. to make this as easy as possible. (Imaging
Google Ads or Overture offering a tickybox to send x% of revenue to
WMF!)
(Second option: earmark such money for an endowment, rather than
sending it straight to the operating budget.)
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Exactly. I for one will vigorously oppose any provisional group that operates in secrecy.
----- Original Message ----
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
To: effeietsanders(a)gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:47:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
effe iets anders wrote:
> although off topic here:
> because it gives a signal by the board that they are willing.
> because it gives a clear timeline
> because it gives a little pressure
> because this report would not be "just a report"
>
> BR, Lodewijk
>
Exactly. The idea of a Wikicouncil has been knocking about for a few
years already, and nothing has happened. Any group can get together to
talk about anything, but that does not give any credibility to the
report. If the Board passes a resolution to the effect that this is a
worthwhile initiative it has a tremendous effect on the credibility of
the report.
It is not just about what some group wants to hash out. It is about
what the community wants hashed out. Making the proposal public when it
was has drawn a lot of comments from the community, including many
constructive ones. Is it not more community minded to put out the
proposal before debate, instead of after when it would be far more
difficult to make changes?
The name really doesn't matter. We could spend a lot of time on the
semantic differences between "provisional council" and "steering
committee" for a group that would most likely not exist by the end of
the year. What difference would that make to any substantive result?
Ec
> 2008/3/17, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>:
>
>> Effe, if the purpose of this initial group is only to issue a report on
>> the need and viability and potential structure of a future group, why not
>> just have it be called a steering committee of some sort, organize the
>> people you think are helpful and interested, and issue a report with your
>> names on it after talking to other people and forming up some more fully
>> fleshed out ideas? Why go through the agita of a proposal and a debate and
>> all the rest, when what you really seem to want is to get a group of people
>> together to hash out what they want to propose - and then start the debate?
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>> On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> as I said, there might be no need, even by your definition. It all
>>> depends
>>> on the report and whether accepted by the board. So please do not act
>>> hastely here and do not try to get everything done at once. Rome isn't
>>> biult
>>> on one day either.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
I have to say that I am very surprised with the fact that some of
veteran Wikimedians don't understand distinctions between projects,
community and organization. (I didn't use irony, I am really
surprised.) The point is that we have to deal with three different
types organizing at once and that we need to find ways how to deal
with them. Something which is appropriate for one type of organizing
is not necessarily appropriate for another.
All of us are gathered around the projects. Our projects are
scientific and all things related to them should be solved by using
scientific methods (encyclopedic for Wikipedia, didactic for Wikibooks
and Wikiversity, journalist for Wikinews, linguistic for
Wiktionary...). It is obvious that, in relation with projects, we need
to develop and maintain our core principles like, for example, NPOV
is. Science is not democratic and all things related to science
shouldn't be driven by any other method than scientific.
At the other side, we need some servers and even money for projects
which may be generated (and are generated) around our projects and our
communities. For that reason we have the Board, the chapters, the
Office; and I am glad to hear that Sue made a great job toward
organizing our economy, as well as I am glad to know that German
chapter is going well and I hope that all other chapters will be as
well as German chapter is. This part should be organized by using
specific scientific methods -- methods of economy and organizational
science.
But, all of our projects have communities around them. All of them
have some real people who are working on projects, who are writing
articles, books, who are organizing data, who are talking with each
other and who have some human interaction between them. This part of
our community has to be organized democratically because if it is not,
it may be organized only in non-democratic way, which may lead not
only to bad relations between those real persons, us, but to the end
of all our projects.
Those three parts have their own lives. It is far from wise to try to
implement a method from one to organization of another. Driving
economy by using political methods usually leads to poverty, using
scientific methods when people should express their political usually
leads to heavy authoritarian structure, using exclusively economic
methods in building a science usually leads to scam.
And when something has its own life, the best idea is just to make
prerequirements and leave it to grow. Yes, we have to work on relation
between those entities, but we shouldn't force any of them to be
something which it is not.
The only entity with which we didn't do anything is our community.
Usually, we treat it as "us" and if it is about "us", we think that we
know what is the best for the community. A lot of people are mixing
encyclopedic values with community values.
While I am very strict in applying scientific methods while
contributing to Wikipedia (or any other our project), the last thing
which I would do is to be NPOV toward free and non-free knowledge. For
me non-free knowledge is a scam without any useful value. Yes, I know
that a number of you wouldn't agree with that, but it is *your*
political opinion, opposite (or not so opposite) to my.
In a "meritocratic" community we wouldn't talk about our different
political position, but we would try to "rationalize" our reasons.
But, the fact is that we don't agree because of our political
positions. And when we don't agree at the political level, it has to
be solved by using political mechanisms. The best political mechanism
is to find a consensus. But, when it is not possible, the other option
is to use democratic mechanism: voting.
Some of our basic political positions are described at meta pages of
our projects, some other are described inside of Foundation's goals.
But, a number of them are not described and for a number of them we
have different opinions.
Trying to "rationalize" our positions by using "scientific" methods is
not a way how to deal with community issues. Community issues should
be solved by using political methods and history of our civilization
has a good and working example: democracy.
Regardless of what the goals are, without editors it ain't going to happen.
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:09:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution
Hoi,
Absolutely NOT. Please read the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation again. You
could not be more wrong.
Thanks,
Gerard
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> It is meant to illustrate a point. The sole reason the Foundation exists
> is because of the editors that breathe life into it.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:52:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution
>
> Hoi,
> So who is going to say that they "screwed up" and why will their arguments
> ring true? Given the large amount of freedom that the projects and their
> communities have, how much damage can the Foundation do?
>
> If you consider that it is only recent that we have a start of a
> professional organisation, it is as likely that the communities cannot
> keep
> up with the changes implemented for the better by the organisation. Given
> the sometimes not so great performance by the WMF in the past, and given
> the
> more apparent clarification of the roles between on the one hand the
> organisation and on the other the board, it will become increasingly
> difficult to blame the Foundation and not be seen as factional in the
> condemnation.
>
> PS an army without soldiers cannot fight? what army and if so what it the
> chain of command? It sounds more like a rabble to me. We are not fighting;
> we are writing free/open content a much more private occupation.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Board is accountable. If they really screwed up, you know what would
> > happen? Somebody would lead an exodus of most of the editors and start a
> new
> > Foundation. An army without soldiers can not fight.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:10:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution
> >
> > Hoi,
> > When you want to change something, you may be of the opinion that some
> > things should be different. In the mean time it is existing board that
> has
> > to vote in the changes that you propose. In all the things that have
> been
> > said there is nothing that makes people accountable. The current board
> is
> > not accountable; we do not have a clue how well board members perform.
> It
> > is
> > only the executive director who is accountable.. accountable to the
> board.
> >
> > Because of your involvement it is acceptable/legitimate for you to
> propose
> > changes to the way the WMF operates. In the final analysis however it is
> > only the board that is in the position to act upon it.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/15/08, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > 2) The Board is already accountable to the community, through the
> > > annual election.
> > >
> > > While we are moving toward this model, this is still a gray zone. Only
> > > Florence, Kat and Frieda are elected members of the Board. And (at
> > > least for me) only three of them have legitimacy to choose other
> > > members of the Board.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
It is meant to illustrate a point. The sole reason the Foundation exists is because of the editors that breathe life into it.
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:52:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution
Hoi,
So who is going to say that they "screwed up" and why will their arguments
ring true? Given the large amount of freedom that the projects and their
communities have, how much damage can the Foundation do?
If you consider that it is only recent that we have a start of a
professional organisation, it is as likely that the communities cannot keep
up with the changes implemented for the better by the organisation. Given
the sometimes not so great performance by the WMF in the past, and given the
more apparent clarification of the roles between on the one hand the
organisation and on the other the board, it will become increasingly
difficult to blame the Foundation and not be seen as factional in the
condemnation.
PS an army without soldiers cannot fight? what army and if so what it the
chain of command? It sounds more like a rabble to me. We are not fighting;
we are writing free/open content a much more private occupation.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The Board is accountable. If they really screwed up, you know what would
> happen? Somebody would lead an exodus of most of the editors and start a new
> Foundation. An army without soldiers can not fight.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:10:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution
>
> Hoi,
> When you want to change something, you may be of the opinion that some
> things should be different. In the mean time it is existing board that has
> to vote in the changes that you propose. In all the things that have been
> said there is nothing that makes people accountable. The current board is
> not accountable; we do not have a clue how well board members perform. It
> is
> only the executive director who is accountable.. accountable to the board.
>
> Because of your involvement it is acceptable/legitimate for you to propose
> changes to the way the WMF operates. In the final analysis however it is
> only the board that is in the position to act upon it.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/15/08, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 2) The Board is already accountable to the community, through the
> > annual election.
> >
> > While we are moving toward this model, this is still a gray zone. Only
> > Florence, Kat and Frieda are elected members of the Board. And (at
> > least for me) only three of them have legitimacy to choose other
> > members of the Board.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Remember, lawyers are a dime a dozen. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a nonprofit. Technically the argument could be made that they are committed to those goals. Please remember this is a hypothetical.
----- Original Message ----
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:05:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A train without destination?
On 17/03/2008, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> They are, but it is fairly easy to say that Bill Gates has the resources and power to further the goals of the Foundation.
If I was given all the assets of the WMF for $1, so would I. That's
not the point. The point is that the WMF is legally committed to those
goals, Bill Gates is not.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
It is meant to illustrate a point. The sole reason the Foundation exists is because of the editors that breathe life into it.
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:52:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution
Hoi,
So who is going to say that they "screwed up" and why will their arguments
ring true? Given the large amount of freedom that the projects and their
communities have, how much damage can the Foundation do?
If you consider that it is only recent that we have a start of a
professional organisation, it is as likely that the communities cannot keep
up with the changes implemented for the better by the organisation. Given
the sometimes not so great performance by the WMF in the past, and given the
more apparent clarification of the roles between on the one hand the
organisation and on the other the board, it will become increasingly
difficult to blame the Foundation and not be seen as factional in the
condemnation.
PS an army without soldiers cannot fight? what army and if so what it the
chain of command? It sounds more like a rabble to me. We are not fighting;
we are writing free/open content a much more private occupation.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The Board is accountable. If they really screwed up, you know what would
> happen? Somebody would lead an exodus of most of the editors and start a new
> Foundation. An army without soldiers can not fight.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:10:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution
>
> Hoi,
> When you want to change something, you may be of the opinion that some
> things should be different. In the mean time it is existing board that has
> to vote in the changes that you propose. In all the things that have been
> said there is nothing that makes people accountable. The current board is
> not accountable; we do not have a clue how well board members perform. It
> is
> only the executive director who is accountable.. accountable to the board.
>
> Because of your involvement it is acceptable/legitimate for you to propose
> changes to the way the WMF operates. In the final analysis however it is
> only the board that is in the position to act upon it.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/15/08, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 2) The Board is already accountable to the community, through the
> > annual election.
> >
> > While we are moving toward this model, this is still a gray zone. Only
> > Florence, Kat and Frieda are elected members of the Board. And (at
> > least for me) only three of them have legitimacy to choose other
> > members of the Board.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
I will be out of the office starting 17/03/2008 and will not return until
25/03/2008.
I will respond to your message when I return.
E-mail communication is not secure and may be intercepted by a third party.
This message is confidential to the intended addressee. If you are not the
intended addressee, please inform us immediately and then delete this
message. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for
changes made to this message after it was sent. Although The Royal Bank of
Scotland plc believes this e-mail is free of any virus or other defect
which may affect a computer, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that it is virus free and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not
accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising from its use.
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No.90312.
Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, EH2 2YB.
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
It was a saying to illustrate that the foundation does not have obey the law in every country. I highlighted the relevant portion.
----- Original Message ----
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:15:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A train without destination?
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Sorry, Charlie. According to the Charter, trustees are indemnified, no matter what the law in Zimbabwe is.
>
I can't see what indemnification has to do with anything, and even less
how Zimbabwean law gets meaningfully into the picture. Indemnification
often does not apply in cases of willful wrong or gross negligence. When
we put someone on a Board we expect them to know that. Nevertheless my
post was about the need to delegate power, not about horror stories for
what can go wrong if they don't do everything themselves.
Ec
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ray Saintonge
>
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>>> Having a two elected bodies making binding decisions sounds like a
>>> very bad idea to me.
>>>
>> You mean the council and the board? Working out which body will have
>> power over which decisions would be essential. There would also need
>> to be a strict rule about which body takes precedence in the case of
>> disputed jurisdiction (almost certainly, the board). As long as their
>> jurisdictions are clearly separated, I don't see any problem with them
>> both making binding decisions.
>>
> I couldn't agree more, but there will always be grey areas, or other
> areas that were never considered when the line was drawn. In that it
> will be most important to maintain a friendly working relation between
> Board and Council to avoid having these issues become turf wars. The
> Provisional Council should be able to identify the most obvious areas of
> Council jurisdiction, and they alone will give the Council more than
> enough work for the foreseeable future.
>
> A Board of seven people cannot decide everything, no matter how
> democratic or willing it may be to do so. If they all worked at it 24/7
> it would still be impossible. It must delegate all but the most
> important decisions. If it had to deal directly with only a few of the
> cases that come before Arbcom it would immediately become paralyzed and
> unable to do anything else. If it establishes staff to do tasks such as
> hiring or paying bills it must allow that staff to operate within
> specified parameters, and interference should be limited to exceptional
> circumstances. The legal right to interfere always remains, because the
> Board has the ultimate legal responsibility in relation to the outside
> world. If the Executive Director fires someone, and the person sues for
> wrongful dismissal it is the organization as a whole through the Board
> that must pay the costs. If the staff fails to make and submit
> appropriate tax deductions in some jurisdictions Board members can be
> held personally liable. Yet staff must be allowed to do its job without
> being micromanaged by the Board.
>
> There are similar models that can be applied in relation to a Council
> with decision making powers. The Board need to retain limited oversight
> powers, especially as regards to real legal threats. Real legal threats
> do not include speculative musings of unaffected parties, but it must be
> prepared to take protective measures when it receives notice from
> someone that his own rights have been violated. Failing to see the more
> egregious illegalities may seem to be terribly boneheaded, but anything
> else implies control by the WMF as an ISP. If the WMF can do that, so
> can your local ISP or your local telephone service provider.
>
> The WMF has no members. It was incorporated that way. The Board could
> sell it, but the implications of that kind of move are absolutely
> mind-boggling. It can be argued that the Board has no legal authority
> whatsoever over the one or the several communities, but equally well it
> can be argued that the one or the several communities have no legal
> authority over the WMF. It's bad enough if we are dealing only with US
> law, but things can get much stranger when the international aspects are
> thrown in.
>
> I suppose that I could argue that the Council doesn't need Board
> authority at all to get started, and that it would be enough for
> interested persons to just set one up, but, legally permissible as that
> may be, I seriously doubt that it would be a constructive strategy. So
> whatever structure the Council will have it must be able to work
> together with the Board, and not in confrontation with it. Those
> individuals who would become members of the Council must be capable of
> coming to terms with the inherently contradictory nature of these
> structures.
>
> Ec
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping