First, my ideas to reform the Board are not incompatible with a
"senate-like" idea.
Second, I think that I see at least several reasons why a Senate for
WIkimedia movement may not be the best way to go:
1) we already advance bureaucracy. Setting up yet another committee in a
hope, that it will solve problems rarely works. It is better to improve the
existing institutions.
2) Separating the movement's Senate from the WMF's Board will further
advance the divide and disengagement.
3) We already have bodies, whose responsibility is oversight over the
movement's resources (the FDC). After four years of lobbying for this idea,
I'm really happy to see now that the WMF will be treated more like other
organizations in the movement and will undergo a review. We DO NOT need
more ideas to separate the WMF from the movement, we need just the
opposite. In my view, the Board should gradually include oversight of the
movement, rather than just the WMF.
4) The costs of having a 15-20 people Senate that meets in person twice a
year match the costs of a small chapter. I don't think it makes sense,
resource-wise.
5) Ultimately, Denny's proposal leads to polarizing the field into the WMF
vs. everyone else. I would very much rather see a situation in which the
WMF is primus inter pares.
cheers,
dj
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Denny, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and
there's a lot I agree with and
more I can empathize with.
What I will disagree on is with the notion that the board has to take the
org's side against the movement by definition. It is my understanding that
the board has the role of oversight of the org -- that is, it's the board's
job to ensure that the Foundation is effectively accomplishing the goals it
was created to perform.
WMF is not a for-profit company where that success boils down to
shareholder price. It's a non-profit founded to improve the world's access
to knowledge.
It's important for us to remember that the WMF is a tool, a means to an
end, not an end of itself. That tool has cracks in it and needs to be
repaired, and it is the board's unique responsibility to ensure that
happens if the executive cannot.
-- brion
On Feb 24, 2016 5:24 PM, "Denny Vrandecic" <dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic
(as he knows). I think
that
a body that is able to speak for the movement as
a whole would be
extremely
beneficial in order to relieve the current Board
of Trustees of the
Wikimedia Foundation from that role. It simply cannot - and indeed,
legally
must not - fulfill this role.
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. If there is a decision to be
made where there is a
conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the
Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the Foundation.
They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so.
- the Board members have fiduciary responsibilities. No, we cannot just
talk about what we are doing. As said, the loyalty of a Board member is
towards the organization, not the movement.
- the Board members that are elected by the communities or through
chapters
represent the voice of the communities or the
chapters. That's not the
case. All Board members are equal, and have the same duties and rights.
Our
loyalty is towards the organization, not towards
the constituency that
voted for us.
These things are not like this because the Wikimedia Foundation has
decided
in a diabolic plan for world domination to write
the rules in such a way.
These things are so because US laws - either federal or state laws, I am
not a lawyer and so I might be babbling nonsense here anyway, but this is
my understanding - requires a Board of Trustees to have these legal
obligations. This is nothing invented by the WMF in its early days, but
rather the standard framework for US non-profits.
Now, sure, you may say that this doesn't really matter, the Foundation
and
the Movement should always be aligned. And where
this is usually the
case,
in those few cases where it is not it will lead
to a massive burn.
Once you are on the Board, you do not represent the Communities, the
Chapters, your favourite Wikimedia project, you are not the
representative
and defender of Wikispecies or the avatar of
Wiktionary - no, you are a
Trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and your legal obligations and
duties
are defined by the Bylaws and the applicable
state and federal laws.
So, whoever argues that the Board of Trustees is to be the representative
of the communities has still to explain to me how to avoid this
conundrum.
Simply increasing the number of community elected
seats won't change
anything in a sustaining way.
This is why I very much sympathize with the introduction of a new body
that
indeed represents the communities, and whose
loyalty is undivided to the
Movement as a whole. I currently do not see any body that in the
Wikimedia
movement that would have the moral authority to
discuss e.g. whether
Wikiversity should be set up as a project independent of the Wikimedia
movement, whether Wikisource would deserve much more resources, whether
Stewards have sufficient authority, whether the German Wikimedia chapter
has to submit itself to the FDC proposal, whether a restart of the
Croatian
Wikipedia is warranted, etc. I am quite sure that
none of these questions
are appropriate for the Board of Trustees, but I would love to hear the
opinion of others on this.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
> Thank you for the diverse input. A few points to Razmy's proposal.
> I have trouble with suggestions that
state "we can ensure diversity by
> creating regional seats". First, why these regions? What does each
region
> seat represent? Potential readers? Actual
readers? Human population at
> large? Why not number of active editors? Without deciding that we do
not
know
whether the regions you suggest make any sense.
Second, why regions at all? How do regions ensure that we have a
diversity
> in age? Sex? Gender? Wealth? Religion? Cultural background? Educational
> background? Diversity has not only the aspect of being from a specific
> region, there is so much more to that.
>
> Also, the increase in number of Trustees makes the Board more expensive
> and more ineffective. I would be rather unhappy with such an increase.
It
is hard
enough to get anything done at the current size. I would
appreciate
any proposal that reduces the number of Trustees,
not increases it.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Ramzy Muliawan <
ramzymuliawan14(a)gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> >
>> > This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated
>> > Board, nor is a developing world-dominated.
>> >
>>
>> "Nor is a developed world-dominated."
>>
>> Sorry, my bad.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
*Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark
dariusz.jemielniak(a)fulbrightmail.org
<dariusz.jemielniak(a)fulbrightmail.org> as a more permanent contact
address. *