Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/30/07, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
In my own experience of nonprofits, it has not
been considered
problematic for staff members to express opinions on matters of
policy, including organizational governance. At the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and
at Public Knowledge -- the three nonprofits I worked at before coming
to Wikimedia Foundation -- it was considered a benefit, and not a
conflict, for staff members to offer input about how they believed the
organizations should run. I would hate it if we felt we had to depart
from that tradition here.
To add to this: Either we have an open discussion or we don't. A
situation where Board members are able to comment freely on every
issue under the sun while staff members are heavily constrained does
not strike me as equitable or desirable,
I, for one, am glad to see you write this Erik :-)
So... I take it you support board members having the right to comment
and debate publicly on every issue under the sun.
I am happy to read that, because my experience is quite the opposite. In
the recent events, I felt that my right to comment has been severely
restricted in many occasions. And still is.
If equity is that staff is free to give opinions on board realm, then
board is also free to give opinions on staff realm.
especially given that this
would lead to an over-representation of points of view
from wiki
volunteers and an under-representation of legal, financial, technical,
and other perspectives -- under the current constitution of the Board.
My preferred approach would be one where we have open
debates that are
clearly contextualized as such, and otherwise present a united front:
Board and Staff pulling together for a shared vision.
The problem being when board and staff unfortunately do NOT have a
shared vision.
There is an inconsistency here: how do you suggest that we have open
debates, whilst at the same time presenting a shared vision ?
Also, you suggested yesterday that Staff should make strategic decisions
(such as changing our project licence) and today suggest that Staff's
vision is also to take into account. I'd like you to explain to me what
the role of the staff is, and where the role of the board is in a
situation where staff holds the vision and defines the strategy ?
Ant