Christophe writes "suggesting a Board member should resign and at the same time saying the process was properly followed, is not ok". I am not sure exactly what he means to convey by this, but I am not aware that anyone posting to this thread has said anything that can be described in this way.
In the unlikely event that he thinks this is what I myself was saying, I suggest he read my comment again (at least one other contributor has had no difficulty in understanding it). The point of it was that the process of managing Kelly's conflict of interest will deprive the Board of a source of advice which is undesirable when the Board already has two vacancies and no clearly expressed plans to fill them. It appears that he disagrees, which is, of course, OK.
If Christophe believes that any postings in this thread have expressed criticisms or concerns in a manner which he regards as improper, he should say clearly what he objects to and why he objects to it. Merely issuing general instructions to the generality of list members to treat the Board in general with greater respect is likely to prove counter-productive.
"Rogol"
Kelly: Wonderful news; congratulations, and thanks for the update. Christophe, thank you for that thoughtful addendum.
Rogol:
The point of [my comment] was that the process of managing
Kelly's conflict of interest will deprive the Board of a source of advice
I don't see why this should deprive the Board of her advice in the slightest. (It's also not how boards usually work when members are involved with other organizations / companies / communities in the same space.)
She will have to recuse herself from decisions (not discussion or advising) where there might be a conflict between WMF and Quora – Just as Jimmy has long recused himself from decisions where there might be one between WMF and Wikia. But the number of such decisions will probably be tiny and not central to governance.
When it comes to strategy in particular, there is almost no current overlap between the organizations' main projects. Wikimedia communities have largely restricted their focus to the << 0.1% of global knowledge that is notable, verifiable, neutral, and {PD, CC-BY, CC-SA}, boiled that knowledge down to a single coherent overview per topic/work/datum/term/place. Quora is dominated by current events, pop culture, trending and future businesses and ideas; by repeated variations and explanations of a theme, by hypotheticals and subjective (if community-polished) opinion; and its material is close to CC-ND, or no-reuse. If there is significant overlap between Quora's and Wikimedia's scope or discovery services in the next decade, I will be surprised.
Sam.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org