The 12 month waiting/cooldown period is something that was implemented in
the Good Governance Kodex of Wikimedia Austria in 2014, see
with an independent committee consisting of a staff, board and community
representative deciding cases that do not fulfill the 12 months waiting
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 16:28, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Jan-Bart: Spot on. It is always uplifting to see one
of your measured
notes come over the wire.
Jan-Bart de Vreede <jan-bart(a)wikimedia.nl> writes:
The Foundation is supposed to be an example of
good Governance for our
entire movement. We (as a movement) have come a long way in the past 20
years (and that is important: as our organisation and budget grows, so do
our responsibilities and the critical questions we get from the world)
It is NOT good governance to have a current board member suddenly resign
and then create a situation where that person receives compensation for a
position that seems to have been created specifically for that board member
(or at least was not publicly posted?).
The impact of this increases as the movement grows, and clear
communication is at a premium. How can we use this moment to model the
norms we want for the future? Any *particular* moment can feel like a
special exception when you are close to it, but the WMF's actions set a
standard, translated across time and context, more instantly and
effectively than words.
It is a good practice to create a 12 month
waiting period before board
members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant.
A few people mentioned that their own orgs or committees have norms or
policies around this (Chris, Philip, Tito); could you describe specifics
that are in place now around the movement?
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org