Sydney and Risker make a good point that much of the current board is already fairly new and simply appointing a whole new board is unlikely to be the solution we now need.
Whether any individual board members feel sufficiently responsible for recent events that they should resign few but they can say. But the movement is in a serious mess and it is their duty to ensure we get out of it.
In the short term the current board vacancy is an opportunity for the board. Reappointing Doc James would bring back a much respected board member who already has several months recent WMF board experience. It would also be a clear signal that the board wanted to start steering the movement out of the current quagmire. Conversely, not reappointing Doc James risks leaving the impression that this particular onion has a few more layers yet to go.
In the medium term the board could reform it's constitution so that over the next couple of years we move to an all elected board and a membership system open to all who volunteer time to the project. There are some discussions about this here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controv...
I appreciate there are a lot of threads running on the current kerfuffle, but I think board reform is worth a new thread.
WereSpielChequers
Message-ID: <CAPXs8yRT9xu2tvXpP-27BDzx8njuN= RM0ovM9sDda9_0YXZgPg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 22 February 2016 at 22:00, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members.
The instability that would result from large scale resignations of Board members would be devastating to WMF.
That aside, under the best of circumstances, the volunteer BoT of WMF are faced with an extremely demanding and challenging work load. And, no volunteer board has the skill set to manage the problems that have come up over the last few months and have escalated out of control.
I strongly encourage giving the BoT time to react to the most recent comments, and develop a responsible plan of action.
I also agree with Sydney, and will point out that in the past year, we have had brand new board members in 3 board-selected seats (one of whom only participated for a few weeks), and 3 community seats (two of whom remain in place, the third being replaced by a former board member. That is at least five new members in a single year, no matter how one cuts it - and it doesn't even take into consideration the ongoing process for chapter-selected seats.
This past year has already seen the largest turnover in board membership that the Foundation has ever experienced; it was unusual to have more than two seats change incumbents in all the past years. We have already seen very significant change in the make-up of the Board, and half the board is still learning the ropes and responsibilities. This level of change is likely to be at least partly responsible for some of the unfortunate situations we have seen in the last several months. But those who are seeking a new board...well, you already have one.
Risker/Anne