I was chair of Wikimedia UK at the time of our governance review, and yes,
the circumstances were quite different.
I also think based on that experience review of WMF governance wouldn't
give the answers I think some people want to hear. In particular no
governance expert is going to do any of;
- criticise a board for having (and using ) the power to remove a trustee
whose presence makes it impossible for the board to do a good job
- suggest broadcasting board meetings live on the Internet
- jump down the Google rabbit hole that half of the posts on this list seem
to inhabit at the minute
Generally governance reviews are quite healthy things and WMF should
consider having one at some point. Equally the recommendations and
methodology used for Wikimedia UK are well worth reading for all movement
organisations as much of it is general. Am on my tablet at present so can't
post a link but you can Google it (so long as you declare the fact)
Regards,
Chris Keating
On 10 Jan 2016 20:17, "Dariusz Jemielniak" <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Anthony Cole
<ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling
out an independent
review
into WMF board practice, along the lines of the
review the WMF
commissioned
into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought
this was an option to
embrace.
I'm not aware of a permanent decision ruling out such a review in the
future as a part of good practice/continuous improvement. My understanding
is that the WMUK circumstances were quite extraordinary and definitely our
of process at the time.
cheers,
dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>