One could argue that any action that would injure the movement would also injure the Foundation by definition. Denny is quite correct that trustees have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however there's usually a fair bit of latitude in how that obligation is interpreted.
Cheers, Craig
On 25 February 2016 at 11:47, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <dvrandecic@wikimedia.org
wrote:
To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
- the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
not
to the movement.
Hi Denny,
Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view. They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
"... I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization, speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization accountable. " [1]
Sarah
[1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe