The board recently agreed to expand the board up to 11 people.
Some of the board seats will be up for elections, including mine. I am not sure yet how many seats will be available, this will be clarified in the following weeks. But it seems clear there will be at least 3 seats.
I wanted to give you a pre-position on this matter.
In june 2008, I will complete 4 years on the board, including 1 year and a half as chair.
I stopped working just 2 years ago, immediately before the birth of my third child. I now wish to officially be in activity again (meaning: working for a salary :-)). A month and a half ago, I registered myself as looking for a job (http://www.anpe.fr/) and am every week meeting professionals to work on my professional project. And to be fair, I am not really sure how compatible it is to manage family/WMF/job. I also think I may be able to help the projects by continuing my activity within Wikimedia France and indicated some time ago, my interest for being a candidate at the next board election (january or february 08).
As such, I would be happy to start the discussion as to who would be interested/willing joining the board of WMF (as appointed or as elected), and who would be potentially interested in the role of chair in the future.
Meanwhile, I go on holidays :-) (good food, good wine, cheers, presents, compliments and generally good will and good feelings)
Cheers
Ant
Florence Devouard wrote:
Meanwhile, I go on holidays :-) (good food, good wine, cheers, presents, compliments and generally good will and good feelings)
Enjoy all those things and have a great festive season. I am sure you will have the support of the community, whatever your decision on how to juggle your commitments.
Brian McNeil
On Dec 22, 2007 7:22 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Meanwhile, I go on holidays :-) (good food, good wine, cheers, presents, compliments and generally good will and good feelings)
Enjoy all those things and have a great festive season. I am sure you will have the support of the community, whatever your decision on how to juggle your commitments.
For the sake of transparency I feel sorry you didn't mention to pleasure of cheese.
Enjoy your holidays, joyeux Noel et bonne annee!
Anthere,
Is there a rationale behind the number 11? Is it because 11=10+1 ? I ask this because, even though in principle, more people should get more work done, the relationship need not be linear. And it also costs more.
h.
On 22/12/2007, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
The board recently agreed to expand the board up to 11 people.
Some of the board seats will be up for elections, including mine. I am not sure yet how many seats will be available, this will be clarified in the following weeks. But it seems clear there will be at least 3 seats.
I wanted to give you a pre-position on this matter.
In june 2008, I will complete 4 years on the board, including 1 year and a half as chair.
I stopped working just 2 years ago, immediately before the birth of my third child. I now wish to officially be in activity again (meaning: working for a salary :-)). A month and a half ago, I registered myself as looking for a job (http://www.anpe.fr/) and am every week meeting professionals to work on my professional project. And to be fair, I am not really sure how compatible it is to manage family/WMF/job. I also think I may be able to help the projects by continuing my activity within Wikimedia France and indicated some time ago, my interest for being a candidate at the next board election (january or february 08).
As such, I would be happy to start the discussion as to who would be interested/willing joining the board of WMF (as appointed or as elected), and who would be potentially interested in the role of chair in the future.
Meanwhile, I go on holidays :-) (good food, good wine, cheers, presents, compliments and generally good will and good feelings)
Cheers
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sure! 11 like a soccer team.
Ilario
On Dec 28, 2007 2:38 PM, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Anthere,
Is there a rationale behind the number 11? Is it because 11=10+1 ? I ask this because, even though in principle, more people should get more work done, the relationship need not be linear. And it also costs more.
h.
On Dec 28, 2007 5:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/2007, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sure! 11 like a soccer team.
LOL
If the Board drafts David Beckham, do we get a package deal for Wiki Spice along with?
On 29/12/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 5:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/2007, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sure! 11 like a soccer team.
LOL
If the Board drafts David Beckham, do we get a package deal for Wiki Spice along with?
Wikipe-tan!
- d.
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 5:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/2007, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Sure! 11 like a soccer team.
LOL
If the Board drafts David Beckham, do we get a package deal for Wiki Spice along with?
When Beckham was in Vancouver for a friendly game between Los Angeles and Vancouver he said during a news conference that he did not sign on with Los Angeles for the money! This did draw laughter from the audience.
Can we afford the price at which he does something for nothing?
Ec
I am aware this will make more difficult for all members to meet together and should increase costs for meetings. However, it seems to be a more reasonable number to welcome both community members and outsiders, avoid putting too much constant pressure on volunteers, provide more diversity of skills and allow room for resignations...
Ant
Ilario Valdelli wrote:
Sure! 11 like a soccer team.
Ilario
On Dec 28, 2007 2:38 PM, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Anthere,
Is there a rationale behind the number 11? Is it because 11=10+1 ? I ask this because, even though in principle, more people should get more work done, the relationship need not be linear. And it also costs more.
h.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks for your reply, Florence.
On Dec 30, 2007 12:48 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am aware this will make more difficult for all members to meet together and should increase costs for meetings. However, it seems to be a more reasonable number to welcome both community members and outsiders, avoid putting too much constant pressure on volunteers, provide more diversity of skills and allow room for resignations...
I've taken the point about "more reasonable number to welcome both community members and
outsiders" (since Jan-Bart, originally designed an outsider expert claimed proudly to be a part of community [cf. Board Election 2007] and another appointed ex-life member Jimmy is even considering to run for the next Election, this argument makes a sense, I think), "more diversity and room for resignation". However, since all Wikimedia Board of Trustees are volunteers, while they take many responsibilities and take care of things in reality not only the highest level of management, but still they are volunteers, it is rather difficult for me to figure out how this increment can help avoid "putting too much constant pressure on volunteers".
Can you please give us some examples to deepen our comprehension? Cheers,
I've taken the point about "more reasonable number to welcome both community members and
outsiders" (since Jan-Bart, originally designed an outsider expert claimed proudly to be a part of community [cf. Board Election 2007] and another appointed ex-life member Jimmy is even considering to run for the next Election, this argument makes a sense, I think), "more diversity and room for resignation". However, since all Wikimedia Board of Trustees are volunteers, while they take many responsibilities and take care of things in reality not only the highest level of management, but still they are volunteers, it is rather difficult for me to figure out how this increment can help avoid "putting too much constant pressure on volunteers".
Marginally off-topic, but I would advise against Jimbo standing for election and would keep giving him an appointed seat. He would inevitably win any election, so it is effectively an appointed seat, so having a meaningless election just takes away an elected seat.
Since we are on the subject of Board elections, this might be a good time to restart the discussion on Meta concerning the rules and procedures for the elections. The Elections Committee for the last (June 2007) election (on which I served, as did Aphaia and four other Wikipedians) was appointed very late in the process. As a result, there was no real opportunity to discuss making any major changes to the rules and procedures, even if members had wanted to do so. To avoid the same situation in 2008, the 2007 committee recommended that this year the organization of the election start much earlier, partly for this reason and partly to ensure the best publicity, increase time to translate the notices, etc. As it happened, from my point of view last year's procedures worked fine and there is no need for major changes, but that should be a conscious community decision and not just a default one.
Newyorkbrad
On 12/29/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Florence.
On Dec 30, 2007 12:48 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am aware this will make more difficult for all members to meet together and should increase costs for meetings. However, it seems to be a more reasonable number to welcome both community members and outsiders, avoid putting too much constant pressure on volunteers, provide more diversity of skills and allow room for resignations...
I've taken the point about "more reasonable number to welcome both community members and
outsiders" (since Jan-Bart, originally designed an outsider expert claimed
proudly to be a part of community [cf. Board Election 2007] and another appointed ex-life member Jimmy is even considering to run for the next Election, this argument makes a sense, I think), "more diversity and room for resignation". However, since all Wikimedia Board of Trustees are volunteers, while they take many responsibilities and take care of things in reality not only the highest level of management, but still they are volunteers, it is rather difficult for me to figure out how this increment can help avoid "putting too much constant pressure on volunteers".
Can you please give us some examples to deepen our comprehension? Cheers,
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree with Thomas Dalton as well. Jimmy should be appointed, not elected, since he's going to win anyway, we can better use that elected seat.
-Dan
On Dec 29, 2007 1:27 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Since we are on the subject of Board elections, this might be a good time to restart the discussion on Meta concerning the rules and procedures for the elections. The Elections Committee for the last (June 2007) election (on which I served, as did Aphaia and four other Wikipedians) was appointed very late in the process. As a result, there was no real opportunity to discuss making any major changes to the rules and procedures, even if members had wanted to do so. To avoid the same situation in 2008, the 2007 committee recommended that this year the organization of the election start much earlier, partly for this reason and partly to ensure the best publicity, increase time to translate the notices, etc. As it happened, from my point of view last year's procedures worked fine and there is no need for major changes, but that should be a conscious community decision and not just a default one.
Newyorkbrad
On 12/29/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Florence.
On Dec 30, 2007 12:48 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am aware this will make more difficult for all members to meet together and should increase costs for meetings. However, it seems to
be
a more reasonable number to welcome both community members and outsiders, avoid putting too much constant pressure on volunteers, provide more diversity of skills and allow room for resignations...
I've taken the point about "more reasonable number to welcome both community members and
outsiders" (since Jan-Bart, originally designed an outsider expert
claimed
proudly to be a part of community [cf. Board Election 2007] and another appointed ex-life member Jimmy is even considering to run for the next Election, this argument makes a sense, I think), "more diversity and
room
for resignation". However, since all Wikimedia Board of Trustees are volunteers, while they take many responsibilities and take care of
things in
reality not only the highest level of management, but still they are volunteers, it is rather difficult for me to figure out how this
increment
can help avoid "putting too much constant pressure on volunteers".
Can you please give us some examples to deepen our comprehension? Cheers,
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dan, The discussion is as least as important as the result. I want to vote on J. Wales.
Best, H.
On 29/12/2007, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Thomas Dalton as well. Jimmy should be appointed, not elected, since he's going to win anyway, we can better use that elected seat.
-Dan
On Dec 29, 2007 1:27 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Since we are on the subject of Board elections, this might be a good time to restart the discussion on Meta concerning the rules and procedures for the elections. The Elections Committee for the last (June 2007) election (on which I served, as did Aphaia and four other Wikipedians) was appointed very late in the process. As a result, there was no real opportunity to discuss making any major changes to the rules and procedures, even if members had wanted to do so. To avoid the same situation in 2008, the 2007 committee recommended that this year the organization of the election start much earlier, partly for this reason and partly to ensure the best publicity, increase time to translate the notices, etc. As it happened, from my point of view last year's procedures worked fine and there is no need for major changes, but that should be a conscious community decision and not just a default one.
Newyorkbrad
On 12/29/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Florence.
On Dec 30, 2007 12:48 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am aware this will make more difficult for all members to meet together and should increase costs for meetings. However, it seems to
be
a more reasonable number to welcome both community members and outsiders, avoid putting too much constant pressure on volunteers, provide more diversity of skills and allow room for resignations...
I've taken the point about "more reasonable number to welcome both community members and
outsiders" (since Jan-Bart, originally designed an outsider expert
claimed
proudly to be a part of community [cf. Board Election 2007] and another appointed ex-life member Jimmy is even considering to run for the next Election, this argument makes a sense, I think), "more diversity and
room
for resignation". However, since all Wikimedia Board of Trustees are volunteers, while they take many responsibilities and take care of
things in
reality not only the highest level of management, but still they are volunteers, it is rather difficult for me to figure out how this
increment
can help avoid "putting too much constant pressure on volunteers".
Can you please give us some examples to deepen our comprehension? Cheers,
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Dan Rosenthal _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 29/12/2007, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Dan, The discussion is as least as important as the result. I want to vote on J. Wales.
We're not talking about RFA here, board elections are a secret ballot. There is no discussion along with the vote itself. We can have an informal discussion whether there's a vote or not. Just start a discussion on meta and point people towards it - I imagine the board would at least glance at it before making a decision on appointments.
You have forgotten the candidate statements, and the questions and answers.
Best, H. On 29/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/12/2007, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Dan, The discussion is as least as important as the result. I want to vote on J. Wales.
We're not talking about RFA here, board elections are a secret ballot. There is no discussion along with the vote itself. We can have an informal discussion whether there's a vote or not. Just start a discussion on meta and point people towards it - I imagine the board would at least glance at it before making a decision on appointments.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 29/12/2007, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
You have forgotten the candidate statements, and the questions and answers.
OK, so you ask Jimmy to take part in the informal discussion.
As another of the members of that committee, I'd like to echo Brad's sentiments. I strongly urge the Board to consider a much earlier appointment of the election committee. The one decision that was made because of "lack of time" was the actual election model - I personally would have supported (and did push for) more study on election models prior to recommending to the board approval voting. In the end, we recommended approval voting both because there was a fairly decent community history with it and because we simply didn't have enough time to consider a move toward another system with the inherent technology challenges.
If approval voting is the method this community wishes to remain with, that's fine, but I didn't like that we were almost boxed into that corner by a lack of time for deliberate study.
I urge the Board to consider appointing the new election committee fairly soon.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" newyorkbrad@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:27 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Future board elections
Since we are on the subject of Board elections, this might be a good time to restart the discussion on Meta concerning the rules and procedures for the elections. The Elections Committee for the last (June 2007) election (on which I served, as did Aphaia and four other Wikipedians) was appointed very late in the process. As a result, there was no real opportunity to discuss making any major changes to the rules and procedures, even if members had wanted to do so. To avoid the same situation in 2008, the 2007 committee recommended that this year the organization of the election start much earlier, partly for this reason and partly to ensure the best publicity, increase time to translate the notices, etc. As it happened, from my point of view last year's procedures worked fine and there is no need for major changes, but that should be a conscious community decision and not just a default one.
Newyorkbrad
On 12/29/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Florence.
On Dec 30, 2007 12:48 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am aware this will make more difficult for all members to meet together and should increase costs for meetings. However, it seems to be a more reasonable number to welcome both community members and outsiders, avoid putting too much constant pressure on volunteers, provide more diversity of skills and allow room for resignations...
I've taken the point about "more reasonable number to welcome both community members and
outsiders" (since Jan-Bart, originally designed an outsider expert claimed
proudly to be a part of community [cf. Board Election 2007] and another appointed ex-life member Jimmy is even considering to run for the next Election, this argument makes a sense, I think), "more diversity and room for resignation". However, since all Wikimedia Board of Trustees are volunteers, while they take many responsibilities and take care of things in reality not only the highest level of management, but still they are volunteers, it is rather difficult for me to figure out how this increment can help avoid "putting too much constant pressure on volunteers".
Can you please give us some examples to deepen our comprehension? Cheers,
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthere, The question is, rather, if you have specific roles for each of the 11 players you propose to field.
Are you going to be the goalie?
Best, H. On 29/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am aware this will make more difficult for all members to meet together and should increase costs for meetings. However, it seems to be a more reasonable number to welcome both community members and outsiders, avoid putting too much constant pressure on volunteers, provide more diversity of skills and allow room for resignations...
Ant
Ilario Valdelli wrote:
Sure! 11 like a soccer team.
Ilario
On Dec 28, 2007 2:38 PM, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Anthere,
Is there a rationale behind the number 11? Is it because 11=10+1 ? I ask this because, even though in principle, more people should get more work done, the relationship need not be linear. And it also costs more.
h.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, it should probably always be an odd number so that we don't get any ties...
On Dec 28, 2007 8:38 AM, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Anthere,
Is there a rationale behind the number 11? Is it because 11=10+1 ? I ask this because, even though in principle, more people should get more work done, the relationship need not be linear. And it also costs more.
h.
On 22/12/2007, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
The board recently agreed to expand the board up to 11 people.
Some of the board seats will be up for elections, including mine. I am not sure yet how many seats will be available, this will be clarified in the following weeks. But it seems clear there will be at least 3 seats.
I wanted to give you a pre-position on this matter.
In june 2008, I will complete 4 years on the board, including 1 year and a half as chair.
I stopped working just 2 years ago, immediately before the birth of my third child. I now wish to officially be in activity again (meaning: working for a salary :-)). A month and a half ago, I registered myself as looking for a job (http://www.anpe.fr/) and am every week meeting professionals to work on my professional project. And to be fair, I am not really sure how compatible it is to manage family/WMF/job. I also think I may be able to help the projects by continuing my activity within Wikimedia France and indicated some time ago, my interest for being a candidate at the next board election (january or february 08).
As such, I would be happy to start the discussion as to who would be interested/willing joining the board of WMF (as appointed or as elected), and who would be potentially interested in the role of chair in the future.
Meanwhile, I go on holidays :-) (good food, good wine, cheers, presents, compliments and generally good will and good feelings)
Cheers
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org