Hi Christophe, I wish it was true that the Board is required to answer the community's questions, but that isn't the case. WMF isn't a membership organization, there isn't a policy that requires the Board to be responsive to community input and questions, and the community has limited ability to influence the Board (though I think it is wise for the Board to listen). My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive to community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions and input regarding human resources and governance matters. (For example, I still haven't seen a good explanation of why WMF shouldn't undergo a governance review in the wake of Doc James' dismissal; WMF has appeared to try to brush that issue under the rug rather than address it with the level of transparency and rigor that I feel it deserves.) Thankfully the level of responsiveness has improved since 2015, but it's incorrect to say that the Board is required to respond to community questions. The vague nature of the resolution as MZMcBride quotes it makes me uncomfortable. I would suggest revising the language of this resolution so that it is clearer which kinds of changes the Board will require the Executive Director to submit to the WMF Board for approval. I realize that it may seem expedient to grant the Executive Director wide latitude, but I feel that the Board should provide more specificity, particularly given what happened when the Board was apparently so lax with the supervision of the previous Executive Director. Thanks, Pine On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Christophe Henner &lt;chenner(a)wikimedia.org wrote: > Hey, > Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do > small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole > resolution process to change a comma. > We're still informed and are talking with staff about those changes. > As for responsibility, we decided to delegate responsibility, but at the > end of the day we still will have to answer the community's question :) > Have a good day > Christophe > Le 20 déc. 2016 6:50 AM, "MZMcBride" &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; a écrit : > This is probably of interest to this list. > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Delegation_of_policy- making_authority > --- > Delegation of policy-making authority > This was approved on December 13, 2016 by the Board of Trustees. > Whereas, the Board of Trustees has traditionally approved certain global > Wikimedia Foundation policies (such as the Privacy Policy and Terms of > Use) as requested during the July 4, 2004 Board meeting > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/July_4,_2004>; > Whereas, the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director has authority to > conduct the affairs of the Wikimedia Foundation, which includes adopting > and implementing policies; > Resolved, the Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter, and > revoke policies to the Executive Director, who may further delegate such > authority to Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate; > Resolved, the Board may continue to review and approve policies for the > Wikimedia Foundation upon request to the Executive Director or as required > by law. > Approve > Christophe Henner (Chair), Maria Sefidari (Vice Chair), Dariusz > Jemielniak, Kelly Battles, Guy Kawasaki, Jimmy Wales, Nataliia Tymkiv, > and Alice Wiegand > --- > I wonder how much of this resolution is formalizing what was already > happening and how much of this is moving the Wikimedia Foundation in a new > direction. After a very tumultuous year at the Wikimedia Foundation, this > is certainly a notable development. > I also wonder in what ways this abrupt change will alter the relationship > between the editing communities and the Board of Trustees. The Wikimedia > Foundation Board of Trustees seems to be committing itself to downsizing > its role and responsibilities. The concern is that a change like this will someone recently. history, > this resolution is all the more puzzling. > MZMcBride > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/%0Awiki/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> > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>

As frustrating as the drama was at the beginning of the year for us, I'd prefer to get one well considered story from someone like Dariusz, rather than a mishmash of uncoordinated replies that have some inconsequential contradictions in them for people to obsess over. Sometimes too much communication begins to obscure the message.

First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more efficiently. It doesn't remove our duty of oversight.

Hi Pine, If you don't mind I will address your different points separately. First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more efficiently.

doesn't remove our duty of oversight. I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time and energy to focus on the core roles of a board. Second, the requirements to answer the community. I'm sorry, here I answered quite spontaneously, you are right nothing forces us to. But, as I've said in my candidacy and in public some time I believe we have, as WMF board, a leadership duty. And I also believe you lead by example. I've always believed, in the movement, we are all partners. We need each other to push forward our mission. You treat partners the way yourself want to be treated by them. That is why I believe it is important to communicate. It doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye on everything

that when a question rise we should answer as much as we can. That's something I've said to nearly everyone who reached out to me in the past few month privately, my answer perhaps won't be the one you want, but at least there will be an answer and an explanation every time I can. Like right now actually :D Finally, regarding board governance review, Natalia, as chair of the BGC, published minutes of our meetings[1], and that is a key topic we address and not push aside. That being said it will be a board review, not one on that specific event. We will be able to provide more information on that topic soon I think :) I hope I answered your questions. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees chenner(a)wikimedia.org +33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039> twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner* On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: community the > Board (though I think it is wise for the Board to listen). > > My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive to > community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions

to level of the so that I of chenner(a)wikimedia.org > > > wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to

the > > end of the day we still will have to answer the community's question

global adopting > > and implementing policies; > > > > Resolved, the Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter,

such > > authority to Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate; > > > > Resolved, the Board may continue to review and approve policies for

Tymkiv, this relationship Wikimedia downsizing is resigned _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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>

Hi Christophe, I'm afraid that does not answer my question. If it changes absolutely nothing, it would be an unnecessary resolution. So surely there is *something* that changes (and that doesn't have to be a bad thing), such as improved clarity or legal certainty. But probably you're right - and this is more symbolic than anything else. And in that sense your response also feels more symbolic than anything else. If your statement 'I fail to see what community input could have brought' truly reflects your opinion, that is quite saddening, and what I feared but did not want to assume. It would be honest though, because it implies that you wouldn't have changed your mind no matter what unimagined facts and arguments the community may have come up with. The argument that the decision makers cannot imagine what the stakeholders could bring to the discussion reflects an attitude that you have all the facts - a denial that there may be things that you don't know to not know. I hope this is an unfortunate glitch (which can happen). Best, Lodewijk 2016-12-22 8:13 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner &lt;chenner(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>: input doesn't better. of efficiently. and past at BGC, address on that community's influence example, I appeared that resolution given supervision to changes. at question to already in Foundation, this course, https://meta.wikimedia.org/ unsubscribe> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ unsubscribe> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik _______________________________________________ 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>

First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more efficiently. It doesn't remove our duty of oversight. I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time and energy to focus on the core roles of a board.

Second, the requirements to answer the community. I'm sorry, here I answered quite spontaneously, you are right nothing forces us to. But, as I've said in my candidacy and in public some time I believe we have, as WMF board, a leadership duty. And I also believe you lead by example. I've always believed, in the movement, we are all partners. We need each other to push forward our mission. You treat partners the way yourself want to be treated by them. That is why I believe it is important to communicate. It doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye on everything but that when a question rise we should answer as much as we can. That's something I've said to nearly everyone who reached out to me in the past few month privately, my answer perhaps won't be the one you want, but at least there will be an answer and an explanation every time I can. Like right now actually :D

Finally, regarding board governance review, Natalia, as chair of the BGC, published minutes of our meetings[1], and that is a key topic we address and not push aside. That being said it will be a board review, not one on that specific event. We will be able to provide more information on that topic soon I think :)

I hope I answered your questions. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_ Board_Governance_Committee

Hi Christophe, Now that the end-of-Western-year holidays are behind us, I'm bumping this thread in the hope that you'll respond to the points that I made in my email from December 23rd. Thanks, Pine On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: and ED the the important have and weren't.) developments BGC, on to _______________________________________________ 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>

Christophe, Would you provide us an update on this topic, please? Pine On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Pine W &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: efficiently. and law." the authority past at weren't.) such BGC, address on that careful the look to _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>

Hi Christophe, You wrote, "This delegates authority, not responsability." Perhaps you could explain the distinction. It seems to me that the two go hand in hand.

Stepping back a little, I am wondering if the underlying problem is that the Board is finding itself overworked, especially keeping in mind that Board members are not compensated for their time on the WMF Board (though they do get some limited perks). If overwork is the problem, I would suggest that there are other ways to address that problem that are less risky.

Christophe On 20 December, you wrote work, baseline These do not appear to be the same, and the later version appears to be what is in fact in force. Do you agree that your December posting was inaccurate? "Rogol"