If a board member mentions staff fear, you might ask if item 2 of the code
of conduct  couldn't be rewritten so it's not a soviet-style catch-all
that outlaws discussion about anything that happens within the WMF.
Staff, if a board member mentions staff fear, you might ask if item 2 of
the code of conduct  could be rewritten so it's not a soviet-style
catch-all that prohibits discussion about anything that happens within the
(Off topic, but: If Jimmy utters the word "accountable" over the next few
days, would one (or all) of you please take the opportunity to ask him to
relinquish his founder seat, abolish the seat, add another
community-selected seat, and run for election as a community-selected
trustee in the next round? (That's the next round, not in three years when
his current term expires.)
If any board member mentions "transparency", ask them if we could please at
least know what topics are discussed at board meetings. I.e., could the
secretary please take down and publish at least the barest minimum by way
of minutes, if that's not too much to ask.
Take notes. If they disallow note-taking in the meeting, sit down
immediately afterwards and summarise what happened, from memory.
On Tuesday, 1 March 2016, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Oliver Keyes
So my concern is not that you lost touch with
staff. I don't
particularly care about any one person. My concern is that the *board*
did. My concern is that when staff reached out the Board replied with
a letter indicating they had full and unanimous confidence in our
leadership. You indicating that you see a problem here and have some
sympathy is nice; so is you visiting the office. So is Alice visiting
the office. But nice is not sufficient.
Guy Kawasaki, I believe, lives in the bay area (correct me if I'm
wrong). Denny works a 10 minute walk from the office. Kelly's org is
based in Mountain View. There are a whole host of trustees who could
be making it into the office, experiencing the culture and the
sentiment and the concerns directly. Why are they not coming in? Why
are they not listening to people?
I must confess that this was my initial response as well.
My initial impression of Jimmy coming to SF was that this was a
self-selected PR exercise for Jimmy – borne out of a desire to be seen as
part of the solution of the problem, rather than part of its causes – and
not so much an effort by the Board to develop a better rapport with staff.
As you say, there are several board members who could comfortably pop in
for afternoon tea at the WMF office any day of the week.
Still, I hope the discussions with Jimmy and Alice in SF are fruitful.
While I appreciate, deeply, both you and Alice
coming in, I am unable
to shake my concerns that the rest of the board making decisions
informed not by their perspectives but by your recollection of your
perspectives, is going to be tremendously limiting. We selected these
people because we thought they had something to contribute we didn't
already have: because their experiences would shape incoming
information in new and interesting ways. So let them receive that
information, and let them shape it. Let's have an informed board.
Because trust isn't great, right now, and this last year should have
made us steer *away* from processes with a small bus factor, not
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: