Michael Snow writes:
And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it
look better.
I think Michael's point here can't be overemphasized. It seems to me likely that there would be just as much criticism and/or expressions of concern if the Board appointment had been offset by a few months as there was when the grant and the appointment occurred close in time. Perhaps there would have been even more criticism, for the reasons Michael outlines. The fact that the Board opted to go ahead with the appointment, knowing full well there was a strong possibility their motivations would be questioned, is an argument *in favor* of Matt's candidacy for a board appointment -- specifically, the Board felt Matt added so much value that it was worth the risk that the appointment would be criticized as being a condition of the grant.
--Mike Godwin
On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Snow writes:
And for people who were worrying about the implications, I think setting
things up in stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it
look better.
I think Michael's point here can't be overemphasized. It seems to me likely that there would be just as much criticism and/or expressions of concern if the Board appointment had been offset by a few months as there was when the grant and the appointment occurred close in time. Perhaps there would have been even more criticism, for the reasons Michael outlines. The fact that the Board opted to go ahead with the appointment, knowing full well there was a strong possibility their motivations would be questioned, is an argument *in favor* of Matt's candidacy for a board appointment -- specifically, the Board felt Matt added so much value that it was worth the risk that the appointment would be criticized as being a condition of the grant.
There is only one thing I think wrong with the consensus narrative above. The description "Matt added so much value it was worth the risk". More accurately it would read "Matt added so much value it was worth the *cost*". There wasn't some potential bad outcome that was fortunately avoided; there was an actual erosion of confidence in WMF. People became a little more leery of the board and a bit more hesitant to quickly endorse WMF positions.
I trust that the resulting good outcome was worthwhile all the same. But a good outcome does not in and of itself restore what was paid out to gain the advantage. I know we needed Matt's expertise. I do not think there can be any doubt attaching him was worth the cost in confidence. Whether the money was worth the cost in confidence would be the limiting factor long before the appointment of Matt. Looking at the situation alone it surely was the right decision. But if every decision of this kind is only decided on individual merits, confidence might erode too quickly.
The seat wasn't bought, truly it wasn't. But the price WMF paid was to surrender that narrative in order to gain a valuable board member and a grant. No matter how much any accurate and nuanced re-telling disagrees; the story will remain: "How the American Executive bought a WMF Board Seat." The events hit too many of the right notes for that title to die. Not to mention the loss of face the tale's death would be to the storytellers at this point in time.
BirgitteSB
On 24 June 2011 10:22, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
There is only one thing I think wrong with the consensus narrative above. The description "Matt added so much value it was worth the risk". More accurately it would read "Matt added so much value it was worth the *cost*".
Thank you, Brigitte -- I think you've nailed it. To recap:
The board had open seats it wanted to fill, and Matt had great qualifications and was willing to serve. The board then talked through all the various issues. Was inviting Matt to join the right decision? Board members researched and met him and weighed the pros and cons and decided yes. Would inviting Matt to join create perception problems? Probably not among external stakeholders because donors serving on boards is fairly normal in non-profit land, but yes among community members, because the community is (appropriately) a fierce defender of the independence of the projects. Should the board do what it thinks is best for the organization and the movement, even if its decisions/actions are unpopular? The board decided yes. Should the board try to separate the grant announcement from the Matt announcement to mitigate community anger? No, because that would be disingenuous. And, it might actually increase anger rather than mitigating it.
Those kinds of deliberations are exactly the job of the board, and I believe board members handled them well, and came to the right set of decisions.
But as Brigitte says, there was a cost: some community members' confidence in the board of trustees was eroded. The fact that all three elected board members were re-elected to their seats after this suggests that either the erosion was not very serious, or that community members' approval of the board in general over the past two years offset their concern about this specific issue. But having said that, even just the fact that we are talking about it here means the cost was not zero. So yes, Brigitte, you're right.
Without beating a dead horse, I'd like to say a few additional quick things:
1) I do realize that some people's trust in the board was eroded here. But in direct contradiction to that, I find myself hoping that upon reflection, people's trust in the board might actually be strengthened by it. If I were a community member, I would tend to want to be vigilant about the board, always assessing their competence and commitment and values. The fact that the board did a thoughtful evaluation here and came to a responsible conclusion would reassure me, rather than the opposite.
2) I want to say that I have been really enjoying this conversation. Discussions on this list have a tendency to sometimes devolve into snark and accusations, and this one has been the opposite. Personally, I really appreciate people's serious, non-flamey engagement on this issue -- I feel like I've ended up with a much better, more nuanced understanding of where you're coming from. Thank you :-)
Thanks, Sue
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org