"My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive to community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions and input regarding human resources and governance matters. (For example, I still haven't seen a good explanation of why WMF shouldn't undergo a governance review in the wake of Doc James' dismissal; WMF has appeared to try to brush that issue under the rug rather than address it with the level of transparency and rigor that I feel it deserves.)"
Have to agree with Pine here. Some members like Dariusz Jemielniak went out of their way to attempt to address community concerns, but as a whole their response to the craziness of the last year seems to be silence and platitudes.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Christophe,
I wish it was true that the Board is required to answer the community's questions, but that isn't the case. WMF isn't a membership organization, there isn't a policy that requires the Board to be responsive to community input and questions, and the community has limited ability to influence the Board (though I think it is wise for the Board to listen).
My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive to community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions and input regarding human resources and governance matters. (For example, I still haven't seen a good explanation of why WMF shouldn't undergo a governance review in the wake of Doc James' dismissal; WMF has appeared to try to brush that issue under the rug rather than address it with the level of transparency and rigor that I feel it deserves.) Thankfully the level of responsiveness has improved since 2015, but it's incorrect to say that the Board is required to respond to community questions.
The vague nature of the resolution as MZMcBride quotes it makes me uncomfortable. I would suggest revising the language of this resolution so that it is clearer which kinds of changes the Board will require the Executive Director to submit to the WMF Board for approval. I realize that it may seem expedient to grant the Executive Director wide latitude, but I feel that the Board should provide more specificity, particularly given what happened when the Board was apparently so lax with the supervision of the previous Executive Director.
Thanks,
Pine
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Christophe Henner <chenner@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hey,
Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole resolution process to change a comma.
We're still informed and are talking with staff about those changes.
As for responsibility, we decided to delegate responsibility, but at the end of the day we still will have to answer the community's question :)
Have a good day
Christophe
Le 20 déc. 2016 6:50 AM, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com a écrit :
This is probably of interest to this list.
making_authority
Delegation of policy-making authority
This was approved on December 13, 2016 by the Board of Trustees.
Whereas, the Board of Trustees has traditionally approved certain global Wikimedia Foundation policies (such as the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use) as requested during the July 4, 2004 Board meeting https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/July_4,_2004;
Whereas, the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director has authority to conduct the affairs of the Wikimedia Foundation, which includes adopting and implementing policies;
Resolved, the Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter, and revoke policies to the Executive Director, who may further delegate such authority to Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate;
Resolved, the Board may continue to review and approve policies for the Wikimedia Foundation upon request to the Executive Director or as
required
by law.
Approve
Christophe Henner (Chair), Maria Sefidari (Vice Chair), Dariusz Jemielniak, Kelly Battles, Guy Kawasaki, Jimmy Wales, Nataliia Tymkiv, and Alice Wiegand
I wonder how much of this resolution is formalizing what was already happening and how much of this is moving the Wikimedia Foundation in a
new
direction. After a very tumultuous year at the Wikimedia Foundation, this is certainly a notable development.
I also wonder in what ways this abrupt change will alter the relationship between the editing communities and the Board of Trustees. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees seems to be committing itself to downsizing its role and responsibilities. The concern is that a change like this
will
reduce accountability when policies are set, unset, and changed by
someone
overseeing a large staff that regularly comes in conflict with an even larger set of editing communities. The Executive Director, of course, is unelected and has been a central point of repeated controversies
recently.
It's been less than a year since the previous Executive Director resigned after being forced out by her staff. In the context of the recent
history,
this resolution is all the more puzzling.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/%0Awiki/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 _______________________________________________ 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
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