Hi,
the Advisory Board, as it was, and so far I can see, as it probably will be, does not have something like a structure or a channel. It is more like a bunch of individuals that mostly the board, and in some cases the WMF staff may (or mostly) may not approach on specific topics. The board and the staff don't need to follow the advises from these people and in most cases I don't see that the AB members organize or interact very much. For AB members that are very easy to access, like Florence, just to name an obvious example, you have multiple channels to ask them about their opinions. I see myself in this category too. Others may not want to be able contacted by everyone, and I see alot benefit to respect this and see only very small benefit to refuse them this.
So in my opinion the current model of the accessability of AB member is just fine.
Greetings
Ting
Am 27.06.2017 um 16:39 schrieb Rogol Domedonfors:
Are those channels proposed as part of the paper you brought to the BGC on the 13th April, then? Or are you ready to discuss them now? Or will the possibility of establishing them be postponed until some time after the Advisory Board is reconstituted?
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
Best
Dj
On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz
Thanks for that update. You don't mention any channels for communication between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting names. I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered important here?
"Rogol"
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees, and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
Dariusz & Nat
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G overnance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G overnance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors < domedonfors@gmail.com> wrote:
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues
around
the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested
in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the
Community,
and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
members or
new processes). In particular, we in the Community do not know who
the new
Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory
Board is,
or whether and how to engage with those members.
Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
engagement
between the Advisory Board and the Community. As a member of the new Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your fellow members to engage with the Community.
You mentioned "tradtions". I am sorry to say that my personal view is
that
the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider
Foundation on
the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
other
has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory. I hope that this is
one
tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <
craig.newmark@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
centered
at
the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
about
this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit
journalism, per
the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be transparent while also Doing No Harm. (The latter is surprisingly difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide
significant
funding to the NII as well as WMF.
I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
subject.
Thanks!
Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation,
and
was
> required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so
in
2015, > so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is
reflected at
corresponding
page > at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is
seriously
out
of > date (it was written when the board was still in existence). Just
about
a > year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's
priorities to
> revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC
minutes for
> April published a couple of days ago at > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ > Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017 > show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on
the
> subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board". No
Board
> resoultion on the subject has yet been published. > > Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a
page
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ > movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board > recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the
current
> movement strategy process. So it would seem that within a
fortnight of
the > BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in
existence
> again. > > What is the status of the Avisory Board? Has it been
reconstiuted, and
if > so, when, and who are its new members? If it has not been
reconstituted,
> what is the status of Florence's record? If and when the Advisory
Board
is > reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members
be
> welcome, and if so how will it be gathered? Once the Board is in operation > again, is it expected that it will interact with the Community,
and if
so, > what will the mechanism be for that interaction. > > "Rogol" > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l 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
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://nerds.kozminski.edu.pl
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wik ipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/re ad/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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