On 03.09.2011 18:55, Jon Huggett wrote:
On Sep 3, 2011, at 09:25 , WereSpielChequers wrote:
Increasing the mutual overlap of boards is a
tried and tested way of
reducing such tension, it doesn't always work, (in wiki speak it isn't magic
pixie dust) and we are in this situation despite having two WMF members
nominated by the chapters. But it is an option and it is a governance model
that lots of organisations find works for them.
+1
Many other organizations use mutual overlap of boards to help communication, foster
collaboration, and share skills (e.g. fundraising): e.g Action Contre La Faim and
Opportunity International. There use a variety of ways of managing "conflict of
interest", such as by defining whether overlapping members have a veto, vote or
voice. Wikimedia Foundation has two board members selected by chapters, without any
pressing and immediate concerns about "conflict of interest". If chapter boards
want overlapping membership with WMF, or other chapters, there are many ways to make it
work.
The members selected in the WMF's board by chapters are not
"representatives" of the chapters.
They are only candidates that the chapters have selected and NOT
evaluated in the point of view of the chapters. A potential candidate,
for example, can be accepted although he/she has never be in touch with
the chapters.
This has been the request of WMF.
So, to be honest, there is no overlapping.
In the other hand there is no knowledge sharing to improve because the
chapters and the WMF are really different.
WMF is not an association, for example, if you would be member of WMF
and make a subscription, you can't. WMF has no knowledge of the local
environment.
The only benefit is to improve the communication and some minor
questions. But, as suggested, it's sufficient to explain this proposal
to the General Assemblies, they will judge the proposal and will vote it.
Ilario