In a message dated 1/8/2008 7:58:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, erik@wikimedia.org writes:
- I don't feel that there's been significantly less or more sharing of information over the last few months than over the last couple of years. AFAICT, there's neither been a substantial improvement, nor a remarkable decrease.
I beg to differ with that statement. Many people have asked to see board meeting minutes, for example, which Angela, as executive secretary, was very good at providing. To quote Borat, "You, not so much."
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
On 09/01/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2008 7:58:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, erik@wikimedia.org writes:
- I don't feel that there's been significantly less or more sharing of
information over the last few months than over the last couple of years. AFAICT, there's neither been a substantial improvement, nor a remarkable decrease.
I beg to differ with that statement. Many people have asked to see board meeting minutes, for example, which Angela, as executive secretary, was very good at providing. To quote Borat, "You, not so much."
Yes, but then we do now have public financial statements. It's swings and roundabouts. Things could certainly be better, but I wouldn't say that had gotten significantly worse recently.
On 1/9/08, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I beg to differ with that statement. Many people have asked to see board meeting minutes, for example, which Angela, as executive secretary, was very good at providing.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Candidates/Eloquence/que...
On 09/01/2008, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 1/9/08, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I beg to differ with that statement. Many people have asked to see board meeting minutes, for example, which Angela, as executive secretary, was very good at providing.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Candidates/Eloquence/que...
What's your point? That it was an official decision? That doesn't make it right...
On 1/9/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What's your point? That it was an official decision? That doesn't make it right...
You can read about the reasoning in that thread. One big factor was certainly the heavy operational involvement of the Board during the phase in which WMF did not have an Executive Director, which meant a lot more confidential & personal details were discussed in Board meetings. It appears that the practice has been recently revised again, with a (redacted) version of the last minutes I prepared posted on the Foundation website: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/October_6-7%2C_2007
On 09/01/2008, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 1/9/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What's your point? That it was an official decision? That doesn't make it right...
You can read about the reasoning in that thread. One big factor was certainly the heavy operational involvement of the Board during the phase in which WMF did not have an Executive Director, which meant a lot more confidential & personal details were discussed in Board meetings. It appears that the practice has been recently revised again, with a (redacted) version of the last minutes I prepared posted on the Foundation website: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/October_6-7%2C_2007
Well, that's certainly a good step. I wonder why there wasn't an announcement... (at least, there wasn't one I saw).
On Jan 8, 2008 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that's certainly a good step. I wonder why there wasn't an announcement... (at least, there wasn't one I saw).
See the bottom of http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036754.html
On 09/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that's certainly a good step. I wonder why there wasn't an announcement... (at least, there wasn't one I saw).
See the bottom of http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036754.html
I'd missed that, thanks. Still, an incidental comment is hardly an announcement. I would have thought the board would have liked to make sure people knew they were doing this, especially given the number of times it's been requested.
Erik Moeller wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/October_6-7%2C_2007
Am I hallucinating or has Oversight been applied to the history of this since I looked at it two or three days ago?
Brian McNeil
On 09/01/2008, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/October_6-7%2C_2007
Am I hallucinating or has Oversight been applied to the history of this since I looked at it two or three days ago?
It hasn't changed since I looked at it a few hours ago, and the only reason I can see for it being oversighted is if confidential info had creeped through without being redacted, but that would involve removing the first revision, and the edit summary suggests the first revision showing is indeed the first revision (I don't believe you can change edit summaries, even with oversight - there's an extension for removing them, if memory serves, but that's all). If it's been oversighted, then it appears the entire page was wiped and recreated.
On Jan 9, 2008 2:08 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/October_6-7%2C_2007
Am I hallucinating or has Oversight been applied to the history of this since I looked at it two or three days ago?
You're hallucinating.
:)
The page hasn't been oversighted.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org