Hello,
The next real life board meeting will be held on the 4-7th of april, in the new office in San Francisco.
The agenda has not been worked out yet, but I intend to outline it here over the next few weeks: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings#2008
In the next few days, an irc meeting will be held, in particular to decide who our next secretary will be.
On our short-term plate, * discussing and defining board and ED relationships (information flows, decision making process, representation etc...) * treasurer search (still ongoing) * 2008 goals (preliminary to establishing the budget) * board membership strategy (for next june elections) * various policies discussion and approval (eg, file format policy)
Other issues will probably be added on the agenda. If you have some specific questions to ask, please do so on this list, or on the meta page.
Thanks :-)
Florence
Hi Florence,
First of all I'd like to thank the Board and the Foundtaion as a whole for the increased openness. This is iirc the first time since a while that a board meeting has been announced this publicly on beforehand, including to-be-discussed topics.
I am glad that a secretary will be chosen, but a question that keeps popping up to me is the treasurer. Because the Foundation website still doesn't mention a treasurer, and a board without a treasurer sounds a bit scary to me. Maybe it would be worthwhile to appoint at least a temporary treasurer? (Assuming that the Board is still searching outside the community for a new treasurer)
Another thing I personally like that the board discusses is the board <-> staff transitions. I.e. can a board member become staff and visa versa, or should there be a transition period.
Finally I think that it would be good if the board would discuss the possibilities of a Wiki/Volunteer council. this Council has been discussed several times in the past, and the last thing I heard about it was the suggestion to let the board appoint some people to form an initial council, so that they can set up the required procedures etc. To come there, a goal etc should be formulated however. If this is put on the agenda of the Board, I am confident that the community will be able to have at least finished a discussion about the topic, although I am not sure that this would also lead to 100% clear conclusions.
Best regards,
Lodewijk / Eia
2008/2/24, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org:
Hello,
The next real life board meeting will be held on the 4-7th of april, in the new office in San Francisco.
The agenda has not been worked out yet, but I intend to outline it here over the next few weeks: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings#2008
In the next few days, an irc meeting will be held, in particular to decide who our next secretary will be.
On our short-term plate,
- discussing and defining board and ED relationships (information flows,
decision making process, representation etc...)
- treasurer search (still ongoing)
- 2008 goals (preliminary to establishing the budget)
- board membership strategy (for next june elections)
- various policies discussion and approval (eg, file format policy)
Other issues will probably be added on the agenda. If you have some specific questions to ask, please do so on this list, or on the meta page.
Thanks :-)
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
IMHO the structure of WMF is not the same structure of a local Chapter.
The treasurer in fact must be the financial director (CFO).
But I think that is *VERY VERY* important that the role of control is *DIFFERENT* from the role of executive.
In this case the board must decide to have not a treasurer but a "Financial Controller".
Ilario
effe iets anders wrote:
Hi Florence,
First of all I'd like to thank the Board and the Foundtaion as a whole for the increased openness. This is iirc the first time since a while that a board meeting has been announced this publicly on beforehand, including to-be-discussed topics.
I am glad that a secretary will be chosen, but a question that keeps popping up to me is the treasurer. Because the Foundation website still doesn't mention a treasurer, and a board without a treasurer sounds a bit scary to me. Maybe it would be worthwhile to appoint at least a temporary treasurer? (Assuming that the Board is still searching outside the community for a new treasurer)
A
The treasurer in fact must be the financial director (CFO).
But I think that is *VERY VERY* important that the role of control is *DIFFERENT* from the role of executive.
In this case the board must decide to have not a treasurer but a "Financial Controller".
I think you're getting confused with the names. We have a CFO, Veronique Kessler, who is a member of staff and in charge of day to day financial matters. The treasurer is a member of the board and is in charge of financial oversight and advising the board on financial matters.
No problem but in any case the name of Financial Controller is more correct than "treasurer".
As you see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasurer#In_other_organizations probably that are skills that cannot be managed by volunteers.
It seems more realistic to bound the role for control.
Ilario
Thomas Dalton wrote:
The treasurer in fact must be the financial director (CFO).
But I think that is *VERY VERY* important that the role of control is *DIFFERENT* from the role of executive.
In this case the board must decide to have not a treasurer but a "Financial Controller".
I think you're getting confused with the names. We have a CFO, Veronique Kessler, who is a member of staff and in charge of day to day financial matters. The treasurer is a member of the board and is in charge of financial oversight and advising the board on financial matters.
On 24/02/2008, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
No problem but in any case the name of Financial Controller is more correct than "treasurer".
Not really, the position is traditionally called "treasurer". I've never heard of a "Financial Controller".
As you see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasurer#In_other_organizations probably that are skills that cannot be managed by volunteers.
Which is why the board are struggling to find someone. Give them time, I'm sure they'll find someone suitable eventually.
It seems more realistic to bound the role for control.
I don't understand. What parts of the standard role of a treasurer do you think should be excluded?
effe iets anders wrote:
Hi Florence,
First of all I'd like to thank the Board and the Foundtaion as a whole for the increased openness. This is iirc the first time since a while that a board meeting has been announced this publicly on beforehand, including to-be-discussed topics.
Not answering yet on the other points, but no, this is NOT the first time. There is no increased openness, I have done that in the past as well.
Here: before october meeting (last one)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-September/032838.html
Ant
I am glad that a secretary will be chosen, but a question that keeps popping up to me is the treasurer. Because the Foundation website still doesn't mention a treasurer, and a board without a treasurer sounds a bit scary to me. Maybe it would be worthwhile to appoint at least a temporary treasurer? (Assuming that the Board is still searching outside the community for a new treasurer)
Another thing I personally like that the board discusses is the board <-> staff transitions. I.e. can a board member become staff and visa versa, or should there be a transition period.
Finally I think that it would be good if the board would discuss the possibilities of a Wiki/Volunteer council. this Council has been discussed several times in the past, and the last thing I heard about it was the suggestion to let the board appoint some people to form an initial council, so that they can set up the required procedures etc. To come there, a goal etc should be formulated however. If this is put on the agenda of the Board, I am confident that the community will be able to have at least finished a discussion about the topic, although I am not sure that this would also lead to 100% clear conclusions.
Best regards,
Lodewijk / Eia
2008/2/24, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org:
Hello,
The next real life board meeting will be held on the 4-7th of april, in the new office in San Francisco.
The agenda has not been worked out yet, but I intend to outline it here over the next few weeks: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings#2008
In the next few days, an irc meeting will be held, in particular to decide who our next secretary will be.
On our short-term plate,
- discussing and defining board and ED relationships (information flows,
decision making process, representation etc...)
- treasurer search (still ongoing)
- 2008 goals (preliminary to establishing the budget)
- board membership strategy (for next june elections)
- various policies discussion and approval (eg, file format policy)
Other issues will probably be added on the agenda. If you have some specific questions to ask, please do so on this list, or on the meta page.
Thanks :-)
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hmmm, apperently you are right, which pleases me :). I am sorry for creating any confusion here. This of course does not mean I am no longer glad that this kind of things is being announced etc :)
BR, Lodewijk
2008/2/24, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
effe iets anders wrote:
Hi Florence,
First of all I'd like to thank the Board and the Foundtaion as a whole for the increased openness. This is iirc the first time since a while that a board meeting has been announced this publicly on beforehand, including to-be-discussed topics.
Not answering yet on the other points, but no, this is NOT the first time. There is no increased openness, I have done that in the past as well.
Here: before october meeting (last one)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-September/032838.html
Ant
I am glad that a secretary will be chosen, but a question that keeps popping up to me is the treasurer. Because the Foundation website still doesn't mention a treasurer, and a board without a treasurer sounds a bit scary to me. Maybe it would be worthwhile to appoint at least a temporary treasurer? (Assuming that the Board is still searching outside the community for a new treasurer)
Another thing I personally like that the board discusses is the board <-> staff transitions. I.e. can a board member become staff and visa versa, or should there be a transition period.
Finally I think that it would be good if the board would discuss the possibilities of a Wiki/Volunteer council. this Council has been discussed several times in the past, and the last thing I heard about it was the suggestion to let the board appoint some people to form an initial council, so that they can set up the required procedures etc. To come there, a goal etc should be formulated however. If this is put on the agenda of the Board, I am confident that the community will be able to have at least finished a discussion about the topic, although I am not sure that this would also lead to 100% clear conclusions.
Best regards,
Lodewijk / Eia
2008/2/24, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org:
Hello,
The next real life board meeting will be held on the 4-7th of april, in the new office in San Francisco.
The agenda has not been worked out yet, but I intend to outline it here over the next few weeks: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings#2008
In the next few days, an irc meeting will be held, in particular to decide who our next secretary will be.
On our short-term plate,
- discussing and defining board and ED relationships (information flows,
decision making process, representation etc...)
- treasurer search (still ongoing)
- 2008 goals (preliminary to establishing the budget)
- board membership strategy (for next june elections)
- various policies discussion and approval (eg, file format policy)
Other issues will probably be added on the agenda. If you have some specific questions to ask, please do so on this list, or on the meta page.
Thanks :-)
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
effe iets anders wrote:
Hi Florence,
First of all I'd like to thank the Board and the Foundtaion as a whole for the increased openness. This is iirc the first time since a while that a board meeting has been announced this publicly on beforehand, including to-be-discussed topics.
I am glad that a secretary will be chosen, but a question that keeps popping up to me is the treasurer. Because the Foundation website still doesn't mention a treasurer, and a board without a treasurer sounds a bit scary to me. Maybe it would be worthwhile to appoint at least a temporary treasurer? (Assuming that the Board is still searching outside the community for a new treasurer)
I do not think it will make a big difference to have a temporary treasurer right now. A lot of work has been provided by Mona, and we now have a brand new CFOO (Veronique), so it is not as if nothing was being done.
The board recently agreed on a name which was suggested by Sue. However, when asked, the person refused the proposition. It was not out of interest, but for various reasons which I do not think I am allowed to publicly mention. One of those however, is likely to be a recurrent reason for all potential candidates: time commitment.
We received several propositions by email, some of them being very serious propositions, worth exploring. Which is why it would be a good idea to meet at least some of these candidates face to face in april.
ant
Another thing I personally like that the board discusses is the board <-> staff transitions. I.e. can a board member become staff and visa versa, or should there be a transition period.
including this in the discussions over elections seem a good idea.
Finally I think that it would be good if the board would discuss the possibilities of a Wiki/Volunteer council. this Council has been discussed several times in the past, and the last thing I heard about it was the suggestion to let the board appoint some people to form an initial council, so that they can set up the required procedures etc. To come there, a goal etc should be formulated however. If this is put on the agenda of the Board, I am confident that the community will be able to have at least finished a discussion about the topic, although I am not sure that this would also lead to 100% clear conclusions.
You know how supportive I am of that. I'll try to add that to the agenda. To be fair with you though, I fear board members do not pay any attention and interest to this option :-(
ant
Best regards,
Lodewijk / Eia
2008/2/24, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org:
Hello,
The next real life board meeting will be held on the 4-7th of april, in the new office in San Francisco.
The agenda has not been worked out yet, but I intend to outline it here over the next few weeks: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetings#2008
In the next few days, an irc meeting will be held, in particular to decide who our next secretary will be.
On our short-term plate,
- discussing and defining board and ED relationships (information flows,
decision making process, representation etc...)
- treasurer search (still ongoing)
- 2008 goals (preliminary to establishing the budget)
- board membership strategy (for next june elections)
- various policies discussion and approval (eg, file format policy)
Other issues will probably be added on the agenda. If you have some specific questions to ask, please do so on this list, or on the meta page.
Thanks :-)
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Florence Devouard wrote:
Finally I think that it would be good if the board would discuss the possibilities of a Wiki/Volunteer council. this Council has been discussed several times in the past, and the last thing I heard about it was the suggestion to let the board appoint some people to form an initial council, so that they can set up the required procedures etc. To come there, a goal etc should be formulated however. If this is put on the agenda of the Board, I am confident that the community will be able to have at least finished a discussion about the topic, although I am not sure that this would also lead to 100% clear conclusions.
You know how supportive I am of that. I'll try to add that to the agenda. To be fair with you though, I fear board members do not pay any attention and interest to this option :-(
That's sad. Wikipedia was founded on fresh ideas. The key to long term viability is to avoid having a sclerotized structure. As Wayne Mackintosh pointed out in his Taipei presentation there comes a time in the life of an organization when it needs to refresh itself, and I see this as an effective means of bringing that about. While the Advisory Board was a good idea, one cannot expect that it will have enough commitment to carry out its own ideas. A Wikicouncil should be able to bridge the innovative ideas of an Advisory Board and the inertia characteristic of Boards of Directors.
Ec
effe iets anders wrote:
Hi Florence,
First of all I'd like to thank the Board and the Foundtaion as a whole for the increased openness. This is iirc the first time since a while that a board meeting has been announced this publicly on beforehand, including to-be-discussed topics.
I agree; we need to give credit when something is done right.
I am glad that a secretary will be chosen, but a question that keeps popping up to me is the treasurer. Because the Foundation website still doesn't mention a treasurer, and a board without a treasurer sounds a bit scary to me. Maybe it would be worthwhile to appoint at least a temporary treasurer? (Assuming that the Board is still searching outside the community for a new treasurer)
That's important too. Now that we have a person with the required skills to hold the staff accounting position there is a need to relax the requirements for the treasurer's position. The treasurer does not need to do the books, he needs only to understand them, and ask questions about the details. The treasurer is also a Board member, and participates on an equal footing with the other Board members on every issue that comes up at its meetings. If an existing Board member is willing and able, fine, make that person the treasurer. If not, this is an excellent situation for appointing a new member with adequate understanding. There would be some detailed questions that would need to be addressed about how long his term would be, and when he would need to face election, but not because any of these details would be so contentious. My own suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment. The six months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and show that he can communicate with the general membership.
Another thing I personally like that the board discusses is the board <-> staff transitions. I.e. can a board member become staff and visa versa, or should there be a transition period.
Yes, there have been some concerns around that. An incidental issue arising from Erik's resignation during the first year of his mandate, is how to preserve the principle of staggered terms. Does his elected replacement serve a one- or two-year term? Elections will require a blend of such terms to maintain the stagger principle.
Finally I think that it would be good if the board would discuss the possibilities of a Wiki/Volunteer council. this Council has been discussed several times in the past, and the last thing I heard about it was the suggestion to let the board appoint some people to form an initial council, so that they can set up the required procedures etc. To come there, a goal etc should be formulated however. If this is put on the agenda of the Board, I am confident that the community will be able to have at least finished a discussion about the topic, although I am not sure that this would also lead to 100% clear conclusions.
The last comment on the Meta talk-page was on January 28. I feel very strongly that this is an important initiative that should not be relegated to the wastebasket of great ideas. Personally I'm ready to be very flexible about the concept, and believe that the initial group will need time to find its legs. Nothing in the early stages will be set in stone. For now we just need for someone in an appropriate position to do something.
Ec
My own suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment. The six months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and show that he can communicate with the general membership.
Why would an appointed member ever have to seek election? The point of appointed members is to get people with specific skills the board requires, the point of election is to get people that can represent the community. They are distinct goals, and you shouldn't try and mix them. (Of course, if a member of the community has the required skills and can fulfil both roles, that's great.)
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My own suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment. The six months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and show that he can communicate with the general membership.
Why would an appointed member ever have to seek election? The point of appointed members is to get people with specific skills the board requires, the point of election is to get people that can represent the community. They are distinct goals, and you shouldn't try and mix them. (Of course, if a member of the community has the required skills and can fulfil both roles, that's great.)
I think if you look closely, the two members that were appointed, were specifically not appointed with a renewable term, but appointed *until* the next elections.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
I think if you look closely, the two members that were appointed, were specifically not appointed with a renewable term, but appointed *until* the next elections.
I believe they were replacing elected board members that had resigned, so they were appointed to elected seats which were empty at the time. It makes sense that their appointment is only until the next election. That's not the case with the treasurer position - as far as I know, that is intended to be permanently an appointed seat.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think if you look closely, the two members that were appointed, were specifically not appointed with a renewable term, but appointed *until* the next elections.
I believe they were replacing elected board members that had resigned, so they were appointed to elected seats which were empty at the time. It makes sense that their appointment is only until the next election. That's not the case with the treasurer position - as far as I know, that is intended to be permanently an appointed seat.
I don't know that I've ever seen anything saying that this position wouldn't be an elected one. Of course, maybe I haven't seen a lot of information, but without something specific there's no real reason to assume this to be true. To avoid further speculation on it, maybe a board member would be so kind as to tell whether the position of treasurer is generally an elected or an appointed one.
--Andrew Whitworth
I don't know that I've ever seen anything saying that this position wouldn't be an elected one. Of course, maybe I haven't seen a lot of information, but without something specific there's no real reason to assume this to be true. To avoid further speculation on it, maybe a board member would be so kind as to tell whether the position of treasurer is generally an elected or an appointed one.
The board consists of a mixture of appointed and elected members, so there is clearly a choice. Given that choice, why would you ever use an election to select somebody that requires a specific skillset? It would be foolish to the extreme. Democracy is simply not a good way to find a treasurer.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The board consists of a mixture of appointed and elected members, so there is clearly a choice. Given that choice, why would you ever use an election to select somebody that requires a specific skillset? It would be foolish to the extreme. Democracy is simply not a good way to find a treasurer.
I'm not saying that there isn't a choice. I'm also not saying whether a treasurer should or should not be appointed. I'm saying that I've never seen it written that the treasurer MUST be appointed, and so I have no reason to assume that such a rule exists.
Maybe the board is, by your reasoning, foolish to the extreme. Maybe it is not.
--Andrew Whitworth
I'm not saying that there isn't a choice. I'm also not saying whether a treasurer should or should not be appointed. I'm saying that I've never seen it written that the treasurer MUST be appointed, and so I have no reason to assume that such a rule exists.
Maybe the board is, by your reasoning, foolish to the extreme. Maybe it is not.
Well, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Treasurer_Search says "appoint" and makes no mention of it being only until an election and there is no reason to assume they plan to put it to a vote, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the minuscule amount of doubt and assume they are not foolish to the extreme.
2008/2/25, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I'm not saying that there isn't a choice. I'm also not saying whether a treasurer should or should not be appointed. I'm saying that I've never seen it written that the treasurer MUST be appointed, and so I have no reason to assume that such a rule exists.
Maybe the board is, by your reasoning, foolish to the extreme. Maybe it
is not.
Well, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Treasurer_Search says "appoint" and makes no mention of it being only until an election and there is no reason to assume they plan to put it to a vote, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the minuscule amount of doubt and assume they are not foolish to the extreme.
For your information, even the elected board members are appointed to the board when they are elected. So that the page says "appoint" proves nothing.
For your information, even the elected board members are appointed to the board when they are elected. So that the page says "appoint" proves nothing.
True, but it's clear from context that they don't mean "appoint based on the results of a community vote".
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think if you look closely, the two members that were appointed, were
specifically not appointed with a renewable term, but appointed *until* the next elections.
I believe they were replacing elected board members that had resigned, so they were appointed to elected seats which were empty at the time. It makes sense that their appointment is only until the next election. That's not the case with the treasurer position - as far as I know, that is intended to be permanently an appointed seat.
I don't know that I've ever seen anything saying that this position wouldn't be an elected one. Of course, maybe I haven't seen a lot of information, but without something specific there's no real reason to assume this to be true. To avoid further speculation on it, maybe a board member would be so kind as to tell whether the position of treasurer is generally an elected or an appointed one.
Previously, the position of Treasurer has been held by an appointed trustee (Michael Davis). The role doesn't inherently need to belong to an elected or an appointed trustee, but since the kind of qualifications suitable for the position (CPA designation, for example, or extensive experience in business/non-profit financial issues) haven't been evident among candidates in previous elections, it's likely that a new Treasurer will be appointed, not elected. People who actually possess suitable qualifications are welcome to make themselves known to us (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Treasurer_Search for information). I think it's fair to say we hope to appoint someone before the next election, but if not and a qualified person happens to be chosen in the election, we won't look a gift horse in the mouth.
--Michael Snow
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@att.net wrote:
Previously, the position of Treasurer has been held by an appointed trustee (Michael Davis). The role doesn't inherently need to belong to an elected or an appointed trustee, but since the kind of qualifications suitable for the position (CPA designation, for example, or extensive experience in business/non-profit financial issues) haven't been evident among candidates in previous elections, it's likely that a new Treasurer will be appointed, not elected. People who actually possess suitable qualifications are welcome to make themselves known to us (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Treasurer_Search for information). I think it's fair to say we hope to appoint someone before the next election, but if not and a qualified person happens to be chosen in the election, we won't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Thanks for the answer Michael. A drop of real information beats pages of speculation any day.
--Andrew Whitworth
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I think if you look closely, the two members that were appointed, were specifically not appointed with a renewable term, but appointed *until* the next elections.
I believe they were replacing elected board members that had resigned, so they were appointed to elected seats which were empty at the time. It makes sense that their appointment is only until the next election. That's not the case with the treasurer position - as far as I know, that is intended to be permanently an appointed seat.
Of the two people being replaced Erik was elected, and Michael, the former treasurer, was appointed.
Ec
The point is this: the board *must* represent the community but the board *must* be also the link between the community and the management (it's natural because the choice of the management is that any manager can be *not* wikipedian).
With a function of *control* of the board on the management's work the community can have *trust* on management's work.
In this vision I said that the role of treasurer is bigger than the role that a board's member can have, but if we are looking for a treasurer in a traditional point of view the treasurer must be a person outside the board (probably), but in this case he will be a member of the management.
Result: the management control himself, and this is not correct.
After the choice to take management's members from board's members it's clear that the management doesn't have the "memory" of Wikipedia and without an "osmosis" between the management and the board this "memory" cannot be easily reach.
Result: the risk is that the management cannot have the trust of the community and the community cannot recognize the management.
Ilario
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My own suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment. The six months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and show that he can communicate with the general membership.
Why would an appointed member ever have to seek election? The point of appointed members is to get people with specific skills the board requires, the point of election is to get people that can represent the community. They are distinct goals, and you shouldn't try and mix them. (Of course, if a member of the community has the required skills and can fulfil both roles, that's great.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ilario Valdelli wrote:
The point is this: the board *must* represent the community but the board *must* be also the link between the community and the management (it's natural because the choice of the management is that any manager can be *not* wikipedian).
With a function of *control* of the board on the management's work the community can have *trust* on management's work.
In this vision I said that the role of treasurer is bigger than the role that a board's member can have, but if we are looking for a treasurer in a traditional point of view the treasurer must be a person outside the board (probably), but in this case he will be a member of the management.
Ilario,
We are not looking for a treasurer in the traditional view. Our finances are primarily handled by the accountant and the CFOO, who are both staff members. The treasurer will not have "the hands in the books". His role will be to
* Manage, with the finance committee to be created, the board's review of and action related to the board's financial responsibilities;
* Work with the chief executive to ensure that appropriate financial reports are made available to the board. Regularly reviews reports to board on key financial events, trends, concerns, and assessment of fiscal health;
* May work directly with the bookkeeper or other staff in developing and implementing financial procedures and systems;
* Serves as support to the financial officer of the organization and as chairperson of the finance committee;
* Serves on the audit committee;
* Review the annual budget that is presented to the balance of the board for approval;
* Review the annual audit and answers board members' questions about the audit;
* Provides financial and operational advice and guidance to the board as required.
This role will be clearly separated from the management, so there is no self-control.
In comparison, in all our chapters, the treasurer has a much larger role, doing both control and execution. This is generally considered ok in small organizations and it was the case of WMF in the past as well (Michael was both controlling and doing the accounting). If (when) chapters grow, they will have to separate roles, or at least set up an independant audit.
Ant
Result: the management control himself, and this is not correct.
After the choice to take management's members from board's members it's clear that the management doesn't have the "memory" of Wikipedia and without an "osmosis" between the management and the board this "memory" cannot be easily reach.
Result: the risk is that the management cannot have the trust of the community and the community cannot recognize the management.
Ilario
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My own suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment. The six months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and show that he can communicate with the general membership.
Why would an appointed member ever have to seek election? The point of appointed members is to get people with specific skills the board requires, the point of election is to get people that can represent the community. They are distinct goals, and you shouldn't try and mix them. (Of course, if a member of the community has the required skills and can fulfil both roles, that's great.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Florence Devouard wrote:
We are not looking for a treasurer in the traditional view. Our finances are primarily handled by the accountant and the CFOO, who are both staff members. The treasurer will not have "the hands in the books". His role will be to
- Manage, with the finance committee to be created, the board's review
of and action related to the board's financial responsibilities;
- Work with the chief executive to ensure that appropriate financial
reports are made available to the board. Regularly reviews reports to board on key financial events, trends, concerns, and assessment of fiscal health;
- May work directly with the bookkeeper or other staff in developing and
implementing financial procedures and systems;
- Serves as support to the financial officer of the organization and as
chairperson of the finance committee;
Serves on the audit committee;
Review the annual budget that is presented to the balance of the board
for approval;
- Review the annual audit and answers board members' questions about the
audit;
- Provides financial and operational advice and guidance to the board as
required.
The key thing that you forget in this list is that he must additionally function as an ordinary Board member.
Ec
A charity's treasurer is always a member of the board. It is one of the positions that is more you *must* have than more than *should* have. Where you have a staff and noticeable amount of financial transactions to deal with, the treasurer does not deal with these aspects. They employ someone on staff to do the daily bookkeeping; either a Chief Accountant, or in more Americanised terms, a Chief Financial Officer.
Looking at a small organisation, my father spent several years as the treasurer for his local church. He had salary for a staff of one (the priest), accounting of costs such as the manse and church buildings, and management of donations to handle. This was all something that he could get 90% of done in a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon after church.
In this case, an accountant was only involved for a few hours every quarter when government documents had to be filled out and filed.
WMF is bigger than that, at least in terms of the amount of money involved. The record-keeping requirements are also more complex. To deal with this you need someone full-time. Being full-time it means on staff and paid to perform work that the smaller operation only periodically needs an accountant to do.
The position of treasurer on the board then becomes more important, but - hopefully - less onerous. Someone else is doing the daily bookkeeping and you're in an executive position as treasurer. However, you need to know enough to double-check the work of the CFO from time to time and give intelligent advice on what priorities are. You also need to take the CFO's work to the rest of the board. This is the hard work part of being treasurer.
For these reasons you ideally need someone who has the experience to fill the CFO position, but actually just act as the executive above them. This makes it very difficult to elect a suitable candidate and far more appropriate to appoint one. Someone taken from the community would obviously be preferred, but the pool of qualified candidates is small.
Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ilario Valdelli Sent: 26 February 2008 11:01 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Next board meeting
The point is this: the board *must* represent the community but the board *must* be also the link between the community and the management (it's natural because the choice of the management is that any manager can be *not* wikipedian).
With a function of *control* of the board on the management's work the community can have *trust* on management's work.
In this vision I said that the role of treasurer is bigger than the role that a board's member can have, but if we are looking for a treasurer in a traditional point of view the treasurer must be a person outside the board (probably), but in this case he will be a member of the management.
Result: the management control himself, and this is not correct.
After the choice to take management's members from board's members it's clear that the management doesn't have the "memory" of Wikipedia and without an "osmosis" between the management and the board this "memory" cannot be easily reach.
Result: the risk is that the management cannot have the trust of the community and the community cannot recognize the management.
Ilario
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My own suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment. The six months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and show that he can communicate with the general membership.
Why would an appointed member ever have to seek election? The point of appointed members is to get people with specific skills the board requires, the point of election is to get people that can represent the community. They are distinct goals, and you shouldn't try and mix them. (Of course, if a member of the community has the required skills and can fulfil both roles, that's great.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian McNeil wrote:
A charity's treasurer is always a member of the board. It is one of the positions that is more you *must* have than more than *should* have. Where you have a staff and noticeable amount of financial transactions to deal with, the treasurer does not deal with these aspects. They employ someone on staff to do the daily bookkeeping; either a Chief Accountant, or in more Americanised terms, a Chief Financial Officer.
Exactly, He is preferably elected. Financial ability, though, is not exactly prime sexy campaign material for an election campaign. Most of the electorate tend to be very unsophisticated about such things. In a board meeting a treasurer often needs to resist a board with great but expensive idea. If the rest of the Board insists on disagreeing with him, and overwhelms his one vote he must be ready to make his opposition to fiscally irresponsible a matter of public record. In other issues he is the equal of his fellow Board members.
Where no suitable is among those elected there is no choice but to appoint for a limited term. If after a predetermined length of time he fails to be confirmed by the membership in an election or other approval process, a new person would need to be appointed.
WMF is bigger than that, at least in terms of the amount of money involved. The record-keeping requirements are also more complex. To deal with this you need someone full-time. Being full-time it means on staff and paid to perform work that the smaller operation only periodically needs an accountant to do.
It's not only bigger, but more international than most large charities, and that brings a whole new range of problems to the table. If a European becomes treasurer he should not be required to travel to San Francisco any more often than other Board members.
The position of treasurer on the board then becomes more important, but - hopefully - less onerous. Someone else is doing the daily bookkeeping and you're in an executive position as treasurer. However, you need to know enough to double-check the work of the CFO from time to time and give intelligent advice on what priorities are. You also need to take the CFO's work to the rest of the board. This is the hard work part of being treasurer.
Yep. It's a matter of being able to ask the right questions of the CFO. It's being sensitive to the questions being asked by the members. Thus, in the wake of the most recent financial statements, it could mean working with the CFO to find a way to divide travel expense according to the underlying reason for those expenses, Board travel to meetings, Wikimania, etc.
For these reasons you ideally need someone who has the experience to fill the CFO position, but actually just act as the executive above them. This makes it very difficult to elect a suitable candidate and far more appropriate to appoint one. Someone taken from the community would obviously be preferred, but the pool of qualified candidates is small.
Not that small if you don't make your requirements too high. Experience need not mean an accountancy or business degree.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org