+1 to what Lodewijk, Anders, and James wrote.
I see benefits in onboarding around Wikimania, and having a system in which
each year we add three people (one year from the community, one from
chapters, one from experts).
However, I don't see it as an argument to extend the terms for current
trustees for a transition period.
There should be some limit (6 years now), and also reappointments in the
case of experts should be based both on the organizational needs, the level
of expertise offered, and the energy and value added - just as Anders
mentioned, these are not always given and stable.
You wrote that " in case this extension is too much to ask from the current
trustees, I'd rather leave the seats vacant."
I personally would rather fill the currently empty expert seat in January,
at the same time that the remaining two seats are open for
(re/)appointment and set their term till Wikimania 2018.l, so that it
clicks perfectly with the desires calendar.
1.5 year is a short but manageable term, that for new people will also
offer us some ability to check them out, and for veterans will not as much
strain as a full term.
Yes, we will have a lot of onboarding (twice in a year in 2017), but it is
still better than potentially onboarding 6 entirely new people at the same
time; part of continuity is avoiding total revamping (if terms were
extended by half a year), and better than extending by a really long period
of 1.5 years.
Best
Dj "pundit"
On Nov 5, 2016 14:12, "Lodewijk" <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
Hi Nataliia,
It would have been nice if you could have shared this a bit earlier, given
that apparently the board meeting is next week. This gives little time for
discussion of your proposal, on a topic that has received wide interest
previously. Perhaps that could be considered a point for improvement,
especially on these non-urgent reform topics. That gives you more time to
incorporate the feedback into your proposal.
I destilled a few different topics from your email:
1) Better onboarding processes
- sounds great to me. Please feel free to invite community members in
setting up such processes as well. I understood that something like that
was aimed to happen at past Wikimania, and that sounds like a good move!
Getting a clear 'synopsis' would probably also help, something that can
serve as a reference point to make sure that nothing is missing. I would
also advise the method I have seen some WMF employees use (but this may be
more time consuming), and that is to have the new board members do some
'interviews' or in general structured conversations with community members,
staff members and other stakeholders during their first months. Wikimania
is a great opportunity for that.
2) Changing the 'entry point' for appointed board members from January to
Wikimania
- May be sensible or not. The upside is that more things happen at once,
which means less repetition. The downside is that everything happens.. at
once. You'll have potentially a board meeting where 40% is brand new.
That's a lot. I don't have a strong preference either way, but whatever you
choose, I think it'd be good to introduce an observer status for upcoming
board members in the months leading up to their formal appointment - if
that doesn't exist yet - especially for people with less of a Wikimedia
background. You could use the January-Wikimania gap for that.
3) you propose longer terms
- 3 year terms are already quite long in my opinion. Continuity can happen
in two ways: because you force it to happen (i.e. by longer terms), or
because people get re-appointed/re-selected. In the past years there was a
lot of turnover in the community and chapter seats because the latter did
not happen: board members were not re-selected. There is probably some
relationship with how the board performance was appreciated by the
electorate. And one could argue that in such a case, it might maybe be
better to not force more continuity - because it also results in less
opportunity to improve the board when there's an observed need for that. In
this light, I would definitely not be in favour for lengthening the term
lengths other that the occasional 6 months to make entry points fit
together better.
I hope this caught the changes you're proposing? Please correct me if I
missed something.
Thanks for sharing though, and I hope that you'll engage in a constructive
discussion despite the short time left before the board meeting :)
Best,
Lodewijk
2016-11-05 13:07 GMT+01:00 Nataliia Tymkiv <ntymkiv(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
Hi all,
I am forking a discussion on Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees
vacant
appointed seat(s) and turnover at this point.
== The Board members start and end terms (Turnover) ==
I have drafted here three charts indicating the starting and ending of
the
terms of the Board members:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_
Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_terms
The first chart shows how it will go now, if nothing is changed.
As you can see we have a lot of onboarding / offboarding even without
anything extraordinary happening, and it means that the Board has
scarcely
any time to work as a team and concentrate on
things beyond looking for
new
people and onboarding them.
The picture is "darkened" by the fact that the onboarding process is not
formalized enough and I would rather concentrate on working on improving
the onboarding process, so we have it in place when new members join,
rather then rush to appoint new Trustees.
We had a discussion about it in the Board Governanace Committee (BGC),
and
it seems that having less on- and
off-boardings-points per year (f.ex.,
at
Wikimania) should be something to plan for. And
less people joining per
year.
The second and third charts illustrate this idea: every year three new
trustees join the Board, with the community-, affiliates- and appointed
seats joining in different years (well, one appointed seat join together
with the affiliates).
Of course the transition period will be a challenge. But it should
improve
the workflow.
== Continuity ==
The second and third charts also suggests that the terms are extended.
WMF
had a really turbulent last two years, this Board
(from my perspective)
needs some time to work together as a group, so (again, my perspective) I
would really love if the terms can be extended, so we can concentrate on
improving how we work and creating / formalizing the processes.
But in case this extension is too much to ask from the current trustees,
I'd rather leave the seats vacant.
== Onboarding and Pool of candidates ==
Just so it is clear to everyone, it is a real challenge if a new trustee
joins. It should not be so. We have started collecting things for a new
Board member to have a smoother onboarding process.
There is also an idea about having Advisory Board working: to not lose
the
knowledge we had with every trustee who leaves
the Board, but maybe we
can
also use this group as a pool of excellent
possible candidates to
"optimize
the hiring process" [1]. And joining the
Advisory Board can also be used
to
onboard people gently. Without too much time
commitment, working rather
on
separate tasks, but already being included in the
discussions to some
level.
== Discussion ==
I hope it is clear from things I said above, but in case it is not, the
discussion is not finalized yet and I plan to have it decided one way or
another at the Board meeting in a week. It should be decided, so the BGC
can move on with hiring new Board members or concentrate on the
improvement
of the hiring and onboarding processes; so the
Standing Elections
committee
can plan the timeline; so the Chair of the Board
can plan the dates for
the
Board meetings for the next year etc.
As I have mentioned before, please comment / suggest. I have listed the
problems I myself see from the inside. And my thoughts about that. You
can
raise questions and concerns from your points of
views. The more issues
discussed, the more informed our decision will be.
If you prefer posting on Meta, please comment / suggest on the relevant
talk pages:
- The Board members start and end terms
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_
Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_terms>
- Appointing someone to the vacant appointed seat
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_
Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Appointing_someone_
to_the_vacant_appointed_seat&action=edit&redlink=1>
- Onboarding for new members
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_
Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Onboarding_for_new_
members&action=edit&redlink=1>
And (just in case) please understand that all mentioned above is my
understanding of how things stand and my conclusions on how to move
forward
better, based on things I heard from the BGC
members and other people I
had
talks with. It does not represent the position
the BGC is going to
recommend, or the Board will approve. So I would welcome negative and
positive comments equally well.
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/
2016-03-16/Op-ed
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a
volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> In case my blanket "I disagree" left doubt, let me state very clearly
--
I'm
not seeking anybody's resignation here. (Just reread Dan's message
and
realized it's possible the beginning of my
response could be read that
way,
though I think I'm pretty clear further
down.)
-Pete
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dan, I disagree. Three points:
>
> 1. Rogol explicitly said they *hesitate* to suggest that anybody
resign;
> nobody on this list has asked her to resign.
Best not to exaggerate.
>
> 2. It is true that there is a higher level of scrutiny of the board
than
> > there has been in the past. We should not forget that in the last
year,
> the
> > board or its members:
> > * Ousted a community-selected member, for reasons generally regarded
as
>
frivolous and insufficient;
> * Defamed that same person following his ouster
> * Appointed a new member with insufficient vetting, who subsequently
had
> > to resign under pressure
> > * Lost another community-selected member, who cited reasons he had
been
> > explicitly aware of during his
candidacy
> > * Appointed a member to a community-selected seat who had not, in
fact,
> > been selected by the community (I
don't think this was actually a bad
> move
> > given the circumstances, but it's worth noting nonetheless)
> > * Lost an executive director (amid scandal) it had hailed as a
perfect
"unicorn" just two years ago
It therefore stands to reason that people will be more critical than
usual
> of the board's activities. I would argue this is healthy. The board
has
a
> > great deal of work to do in regaining the trust it has lost as an
> > institution. (I'll note that I published some suggestions about
actions
the
> board could take; I have seen no indication that the board even read
this
> > op-ed, much less considered implementing its suggestions.
> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/
> > 2016-03-16/Op-ed )
> >
> > 3. On the specifics mentioned here: Without suggesting that Ms.
Battles
or
> anybody has done anything wrong, it is indeed prudent, as Rogol
suggests,
> to consider whether this might constitute a
COI that directly impedes
> important work on Wikimedia's behalf. I'm personally not as worried
about
> it as Rogol; I take it as a good sign that
she has proactively
announced
> it
> > here, and I trust it will be noted in a more visible location as
well.
I
am
not sure that her area of specialization
(finance) is something that
would
> really suffer from this particular COI. But as important as legal
vetting
> > may be, it remains important that somebody pay attention to the fit
of
>
board members with the general mission of the organization -- and I
> wouldn't expect WMF staff lawyers to fill that role. Ordinarily, I
think
it
> would be the board's role to pay attention to that -- but for the
reasons
> stated above, I think it's worthwhile if
others in the movement pay
> attention too.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Dan Garry <dgarry(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> >
> >> The mere potential that a conflict of interest may arise in the
future
> is
> >> not necessarily a reason to resign from the board. This is why we
have
> >> legal counsel such as Stephen and
Michelle to determine whether such
> >> conflicts are serious enough to be inappropriate. We should all be
> >> satisfied with their opinions that this situation is fine in light
of
> >> their
> >> reputation, experience, and credentials; I know I am.
> >>
> >> Minor conflicts of interest sometimes arise. That is normal, and as
> Kelly
> >> said, such conflicts can be managed. For example, when it happens,
the
> >> relevant party can do things like
recusing themselves from that
> discussion
> >> and stepping out of the room until the discussion is complete. This
is
> >> standard procedure adopted by
boards of other organisations, and
also
in
> >> parts of our movement such as the Arbitration Committees or Funds
> >> Dissemination Committee.
> >>
> >> Additionally, I am disturbed by the recent trend of seemingly all
> threads
> >> involving members of the Board of Trustees inevitably having someone
> >> asking
> >> a trustee to resign. I hope this absurdity does not continue.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> On 2 November 2016 at 22:34, Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors(a)gmail.com
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Congratuations to Kelly Battles on her new job at Quora. I
believe
> I'm
> >> > correct in saying that this is a company whose business is to
make a
>>
profit
>> > by pursuing its "mission is to share and grow the world’s
knowledge".
> >> > Surely that means that in general the more and better the
Wikimedia
>>
> projects pursue their mission, the more they will undercut Quora's
>> > business? In particular, would not the Knowledge Engine, at least
as
>> > originally conceived, be very much
in direct competition with
Quora's
> >> > question-and-answer model? It seems to me that Kelly's duty to
her
> new
> >> > employer is likely to come very clearly into conflict with her
duty
to
>> the
>> > Foundation, and while it is posible that this can be managed, will
it
>> not
>> > seriously diminish her ability to work with the Board on the
strategic
>> > thinking they are just about to
start? I hestiate to suggest that
>> Kelly's
>> > best course of action is to step down from the Board but I do
believe
> it
> >> > needs serious consideration by herself and her fellow Trustees --
it
is
>> not
>> > clear whether it is better for the Board to have another vacancy,
or
a
> >> > Trustee who is unable to engage in the strategy-setting which is
so
> bady
> >> > needed. Indeed, with two vacancies already, and no clear
indication
of
> > when or how they will be filled, I
suggest that the Board is in a
rather
>> > awkward position now.
>> >
>> > "Rogol"
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Garry
>> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/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>
_______________________________________________
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>