Well, that's the point. Phoebe *was* responsible for this, just as Bishakha
has been so far this year. Who's been sending out the minutes and posting
resolutions?
Further, it's to improve compliance with legislation. Thus, it's
housekeeping.
Risker
On 5 November 2012 19:04, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary
actually took minutes...
That would usually be delegated...
On Nov 6, 2012 12:02 AM, "Risker" <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It would strike me that one of the
"urgencies" that might be involved is
the fact that this resolution was passed so that the Board member who had
previously been the secretary could participate as an individual board
member, and the appointed secretary could take the minutes. It's
extremely
rare for a staffed charity/non-profit to have
sitting trustees acting as
secretary or treasurer, and none of the discussion here has indicated any
concern about this decision; this was essentially housekeeping.
Therefore,
the only thing I can take from this is that it is
a process issue, and
that
some members of the community wish to know in
advance and in detail what
the board will be discussing. I can understand that; at the same time, I
think that attempting to micro-manage the board over housekeeping items
is
not terribly helpful. Now, if the Board had been
deciding on its
composition (which as best I can tell was never publicly discussed the
last
time it was changed), I think that would
certainly benefit from community
input.
Risker
On 5 November 2012 18:25, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> (just for the record: in case someone does have a valid reason, I'm
still
> very open to hearing good reasons why the
board chose the procedure
they
chose
(behind closed doors), and whether there was any urgency to the
changes proposed. I somehow missed that in the replies but may have
missed
> it. Knowing about such reasons might be helpful in the light of
proposing
> changes to procedures.
>
> Lodewijk)
>
> 2012/11/2 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
>
> > Hi Bishakha,
> >
> > 2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta(a)gmail.com>
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lodewijk <
lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dear Bishakha,
> >> >
> >> > could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a
secretive
>>
> amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed
amendments
> >> with
> >> > the community and asking their input on it? Especially where it
> concerns
> >> > such non-trivial changes.
> >> >
> >> Ok, now that the document showing old and new has finally been
> uploaded, I
> >> will try to answer your question.
> >>
> >> The legal team proposed that we amend the bylaws, primarily to
ensure
> >> compliance with Florida non-profit
laws.
> >>
> >> Since most of the changes are legal in nature, they were not
referred
to
> >> the community for prior input.
> >>
> >> I understand how this action can be seen as secretive or opaque,
even
> >> though it may not have been
intended as such.
> >>
> >> Is it also possible to see this action as reasonable, given the
nature
of
>> most of the changes?
>>
>
> I don't see how this validates the fact that you did not consult the
> community on these changes. If the changes are fairly trivial and
> legalistic, then the community will likely have little objection. But
as
> you noted, there was at least one
significant change (I haven't been
able
> > to check myself) and I'm having a hard time understanding why you
(the
>
board) would /not/ want the input of the community on such decisions.
>
> If people talk rubbish, it is easy to ignore. But maybe they have a
very
> > good point that you want to take into account. If they come up with
an
> > argument that changes your mind -
wouldn't that mean that the goal
has
> been
> > accomplished?
> >
> > Especially with the second most important governing document of the
> > Wikimedia Foundation (after the Articles of Incorporation) I don't
> > understand why changing it is not considered to be relevant to the
> > community. Maybe this specific change was a good one (I'm not sure
yet
I
> agree, until I heard the explanation of the
why) but maybe next time
the
> > changes are more drastic and infringing. I find it silly that we do
> require
> > chapters to let their bylaws approved by the Affiliations Committee
> > (although enforcement of that could be improved), and make them
public
before doing so - but that the Wikimedia Foundation
wouldn't have to
follow
the same standards.
But let me make this constructive: I will set up a page on meta (I'll
send
> a separate email about that) where the community can discuss measures
to
make the
Wikimedia Foundation more democratic.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l