Hey,
I feel there might be a misunderstanding here :)
Legal team has, for a long time now, always worked with the community on policy updates.
I don't see that changing.
This is a technical / legal delegation. I fail to see what community input could have brought. We needed to be able to make changes to policies more easily, it is now possible.
Does this mean it changes everything else, no.
Le 21 déc. 2016 11:24 PM, "Lodewijk" lodewijk@effeietsanders.org a écrit :
Hi Christophe, all,
I wonder, was there an urgency to pass this resolution, or did I miss the invitation for community members to give input on this proposal? It doesn't look particularly sensitive so that it couldn't be shared in advance. It has potentially direct impact on the functioning of the community. Seems like a typical example where requesting input could be valuable. So I'd like to understand the thinking behind the chosen process a little better.
Basically I'd have liked the discussion in this thread to have been part of the considerations, rather than a response to the resolution.
Thanks, Lodewijk
2016-12-21 4:45 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org:
Hi Pine,
If you don't mind I will address your different points separately.
First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more efficiently.
It
doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time and energy to focus on the core roles of a board.
Second, the requirements to answer the community. I'm sorry, here I answered quite spontaneously, you are right nothing forces us to.
But, as I've said in my candidacy and in public some time I believe we have, as WMF board, a leadership duty. And I also believe you lead by example. I've always believed, in the movement, we are all partners. We need each other to push forward our mission. You treat partners the way yourself want to be treated by them. That is why I believe it is important to communicate. It doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye on everything
but
that when a question rise we should answer as much as we can. That's something I've said to nearly everyone who reached out to me in the past few month privately, my answer perhaps won't be the one you want, but at least there will be an answer and an explanation every time I can. Like right now actually :D
Finally, regarding board governance review, Natalia, as chair of the BGC, published minutes of our meetings[1], and that is a key topic we address and not push aside. That being said it will be a board review, not one on that specific event. We will be able to provide more information on that topic soon I think :)
I hope I answered your questions.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees chenner@wikimedia.org +33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:14 AM, 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.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Delegation_of_policy-ma
king_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/wik i/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/wik i/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