Let me add my congratulations to the successful candidates in the Board election that just concluded, and my thanks to everyone who participated -- including all the candidates, my fellow election committee members, and the voters. (It feels odd in a wiki context to actually write "voters" rather than ! voters. :) )
I have seen some references in this and other threads to people wanting to discuss some possible changes to the way in which future elections are run, based on lessons that we have learned this time. This year, the Election Committee members were selected only a few days before the election timetable began, which meant that we had comparatively little time to discuss the proposed election procedures before we had to get the process moving. Despite this, my opinion is that everything went reasonably smoothly.
Nonetheless, and I emphasize that I am speaking here only for myself and not officially on behalf of the Election Committee or anyone else, I think it would definitely be a good practice to plan for future elections much further in advance than we were able to do this year.
I suggest that there be an on-wiki dialog regarding some of the matters concerning the Board Election procedures that contributors might (or might not) want to change for future years. The purpose would not be to have an endless debate for the sake of debating, but to address concrete and specific changes that might (or might not) be desirable, with a goal of setting the parameters for future elections in advance. The topics to be addressed could include (but not be limited to):
(1) Voting system (approval voting versus other systems) (2) Candidate and voter qualifications and the endorsement system (3) Election publicity and communications
Although we have not decided this as a committee, I believe that most of this year's Election Committee members would be willing to set up pages on Meta and help to guide this discussion, if there is consensus here on the list or elsewhere that this should be done. It is unlikely that anything much would happen until after Wikimania, but I think that it might be a good idea to get any discussion going relatively soon while whatever issues arose during this year's election are fresh in people's mind. If we table the discussion for too long, then I suspect it will stay tabled until the 2008 elections are just around the corner and next year's committee will find itself in the same position that this year's did.
Everyone's thoughts will be appreciated.
Newyorkbrad
I agree with Brad, endorse his suggestion, and am pleased to help with this discussion any way that I can.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:32 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Future Board election procedures and guidelines
Let me add my congratulations to the successful candidates in the Board election that just concluded, and my thanks to everyone who participated -- including all the candidates, my fellow election committee members, and the voters. (It feels odd in a wiki context to actually write "voters" rather than ! voters. :) )
I have seen some references in this and other threads to people wanting to discuss some possible changes to the way in which future elections are run, based on lessons that we have learned this time. This year, the Election Committee members were selected only a few days before the election timetable began, which meant that we had comparatively little time to discuss the proposed election procedures before we had to get the process moving. Despite this, my opinion is that everything went reasonably smoothly.
Nonetheless, and I emphasize that I am speaking here only for myself and not officially on behalf of the Election Committee or anyone else, I think it would definitely be a good practice to plan for future elections much further in advance than we were able to do this year.
I suggest that there be an on-wiki dialog regarding some of the matters concerning the Board Election procedures that contributors might (or might not) want to change for future years. The purpose would not be to have an endless debate for the sake of debating, but to address concrete and specific changes that might (or might not) be desirable, with a goal of setting the parameters for future elections in advance. The topics to be addressed could include (but not be limited to):
(1) Voting system (approval voting versus other systems) (2) Candidate and voter qualifications and the endorsement system (3) Election publicity and communications
Although we have not decided this as a committee, I believe that most of this year's Election Committee members would be willing to set up pages on Meta and help to guide this discussion, if there is consensus here on the list or elsewhere that this should be done. It is unlikely that anything much would happen until after Wikimania, but I think that it might be a good idea to get any discussion going relatively soon while whatever issues arose during this year's election are fresh in people's mind. If we table the discussion for too long, then I suspect it will stay tabled until the 2008 elections are just around the corner and next year's committee will find itself in the same position that this year's did.
Everyone's thoughts will be appreciated.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have elections coming up again in December 2007? -Dan
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I agree with Brad, endorse his suggestion, and am pleased to help with this discussion any way that I can.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:32 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Future Board election procedures and guidelines
Let me add my congratulations to the successful candidates in the Board election that just concluded, and my thanks to everyone who participated -- including all the candidates, my fellow election committee members, and the voters. (It feels odd in a wiki context to actually write "voters" rather than ! voters. :) )
I have seen some references in this and other threads to people wanting to discuss some possible changes to the way in which future elections are run, based on lessons that we have learned this time. This year, the Election Committee members were selected only a few days before the election timetable began, which meant that we had comparatively little time to discuss the proposed election procedures before we had to get the process moving. Despite this, my opinion is that everything went reasonably smoothly.
Nonetheless, and I emphasize that I am speaking here only for myself and not officially on behalf of the Election Committee or anyone else, I think it would definitely be a good practice to plan for future elections much further in advance than we were able to do this year.
I suggest that there be an on-wiki dialog regarding some of the matters concerning the Board Election procedures that contributors might (or might not) want to change for future years. The purpose would not be to have an endless debate for the sake of debating, but to address concrete and specific changes that might (or might not) be desirable, with a goal of setting the parameters for future elections in advance. The topics to be addressed could include (but not be limited to):
(1) Voting system (approval voting versus other systems) (2) Candidate and voter qualifications and the endorsement system (3) Election publicity and communications
Although we have not decided this as a committee, I believe that most of this year's Election Committee members would be willing to set up pages on Meta and help to guide this discussion, if there is consensus here on the list or elsewhere that this should be done. It is unlikely that anything much would happen until after Wikimania, but I think that it might be a good idea to get any discussion going relatively soon while whatever issues arose during this year's election are fresh in people's mind. If we table the discussion for too long, then I suspect it will stay tabled until the 2008 elections are just around the corner and next year's committee will find itself in the same position that this year's did.
Everyone's thoughts will be appreciated.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Are the seats whose terms expire in December 2007 held by elective or appointive members? Has the Board decided how these three seats will be filled next time around?
Newyorkbrad
On 7/13/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have elections coming up again in December 2007? -Dan
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I agree with Brad, endorse his suggestion, and am pleased to help with this discussion any way that I can.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:32 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Future Board election procedures and guidelines
Let me add my congratulations to the successful candidates in the Board election that just concluded, and my thanks to everyone who participated -- including all the candidates, my fellow election committee members, and the voters. (It feels odd in a wiki context to actually write "voters" rather than ! voters. :) )
I have seen some references in this and other threads to people wanting to discuss some possible changes to the way in which future elections are run, based on lessons that we have learned this time. This year, the Election Committee members were selected only a few days before the election timetable began, which meant that we had comparatively little time to discuss the proposed election procedures before we had to get the process moving. Despite this, my opinion is that everything went reasonably smoothly.
Nonetheless, and I emphasize that I am speaking here only for myself and not officially on behalf of the Election Committee or anyone else, I think it would definitely be a good practice to plan for future elections much further in advance than we were able to do this year.
I suggest that there be an on-wiki dialog regarding some of the matters concerning the Board Election procedures that contributors might (or might not) want to change for future years. The purpose would not be to have an endless debate for the sake of debating, but to address concrete and specific changes that might (or might not) be desirable, with a goal of setting the parameters for future elections in advance. The topics to be addressed could include (but not be limited to):
(1) Voting system (approval voting versus other systems) (2) Candidate and voter qualifications and the endorsement system (3) Election publicity and communications
Although we have not decided this as a committee, I believe that most of this year's Election Committee members would be willing to set up pages on Meta and help to guide this discussion, if there is consensus here on the list or elsewhere that this should be done. It is unlikely that anything much would happen until after Wikimania, but I think that it might be a good idea to get any discussion going relatively soon while whatever issues arose during this year's election are fresh in people's mind. If we table the discussion for too long, then I suspect it will stay tabled until the 2008 elections are just around the corner and next year's committee will find itself in the same position that this year's did.
Everyone's thoughts will be appreciated.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jul 13, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
Are the seats whose terms expire in December 2007 held by elective or appointive members? Has the Board decided how these three seats will be filled next time around?
Newyorkbrad
I don't know. I just remembered seeing on a calendar that terms expire in December 2007. I think Jimmy and Michael's terms? Maybe? I just vaguely remember seeing it.
-Dan
Well, that much I can help with: [[meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board of Trustees]] states that it's Jimbo Wales, Michael Davis, and Jan-Bart de Vreede whose terms expire this December.
Newyorkbrad
On 7/13/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
Are the seats whose terms expire in December 2007 held by elective or appointive members? Has the Board decided how these three seats will be filled next time around?
Newyorkbrad
I don't know. I just remembered seeing on a calendar that terms expire in December 2007. I think Jimmy and Michael's terms? Maybe? I just vaguely remember seeing it.
-Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/14/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Are the seats whose terms expire in December 2007 held by elective or appointive members? Has the Board decided how these three seats will be filled next time around?
There are currently seven seats.
Three are held by appointed members (Jimbo, Michael, Jan-Bart) and their terms expire on 31 December this year. From that time onwards, appointed members are appointed for terms of one year.
Three are held by elected members (Erik, Kat, Frieda) who were just elected yesterday, their terms last for two years, and will expire on 30 June 2009.
The odd one out is Ant, who was an elected member whose term was due to end 30 June this year, but she was converted to an appointed member at the last board expansion with a term expiring on 30 June 2008. At that time, Ant's appointed seat will be replaced by an elected seat.
I anticipate (based on the most recent Board expansion resolution) that the Board will expand to nine members at that time, adding another two community elected seats, with terms commencing 1 July 2008. This will result in two tranches of three elected members serving two year terms, beginning on 1 July, offset from each other by one year, and one tranche of appointed members with one year terms beginning on 1 January each year.
Hoi, I have supported and do support that employees and ex-employees should not be eligible to stand for an elected function of the Wikimedia Foundation. Ex-employees would become eligible again after a year.
This original point was made in an e-mail on the Foundation list by Jan-Bart.
Thanks, GerardM
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029433.html
On 7/14/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Are the seats whose terms expire in December 2007 held by elective or appointive members? Has the Board decided how these three seats will be filled next time around?
There are currently seven seats.
Three are held by appointed members (Jimbo, Michael, Jan-Bart) and their terms expire on 31 December this year. From that time onwards, appointed members are appointed for terms of one year.
Three are held by elected members (Erik, Kat, Frieda) who were just elected yesterday, their terms last for two years, and will expire on 30 June 2009.
The odd one out is Ant, who was an elected member whose term was due to end 30 June this year, but she was converted to an appointed member at the last board expansion with a term expiring on 30 June 2008. At that time, Ant's appointed seat will be replaced by an elected seat.
I anticipate (based on the most recent Board expansion resolution) that the Board will expand to nine members at that time, adding another two community elected seats, with terms commencing 1 July 2008. This will result in two tranches of three elected members serving two year terms, beginning on 1 July, offset from each other by one year, and one tranche of appointed members with one year terms beginning on 1 January each year.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/14/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
There are currently seven seats.
Three are held by appointed members (Jimbo, Michael, Jan-Bart) and their terms expire on 31 December this year. From that time onwards, appointed members are appointed for terms of one year.
Three are held by elected members (Erik, Kat, Frieda) who were just elected yesterday, their terms last for two years, and will expire on 30 June 2009.
The odd one out is Ant, who was an elected member whose term was due to end 30 June this year, but she was converted to an appointed member at the last board expansion with a term expiring on 30 June 2008. At that time, Ant's appointed seat will be replaced by an elected seat.
I anticipate (based on the most recent Board expansion resolution) that the Board will expand to nine members at that time, adding another two community elected seats, with terms commencing 1 July 2008. This will result in two tranches of three elected members serving two year terms, beginning on 1 July, offset from each other by one year, and one tranche of appointed members with one year terms beginning on 1 January each year.
Fixing inadvertent top posting...
Hoi, I have supported and do support that employees and ex-employees should not be eligible to stand for an elected function of the Wikimedia Foundation. Ex-employees would become eligible again after a year.
This original point was made in an e-mail on the Foundation list by Jan-Bart.
Thanks, GerardM
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029433.html
A year long cooling period, perhaps even one year and a half for good measure, sounds at first hearing like a capital idea.
However, this does open theoretical avenues for abuse... strictly theoretical mind you...
To take a perfectly hypothetical case. Let us say the foundation board members are worried that notorious troublemaker Tweedledee is going to run for board of trustees membership. And despite his tendency to rouffle feathers, or perhaps because of it, they fear Tweedledee might easily do well in the elections, maybe even get in.
So the trustees have a bright idea! They hire Tweedledee, as an employee in charge of paperclips and hand him a red stapler giving him a desk at the basement of the foundation office.
Now, there is a rule that there is an X month quarantine during which former employees may not run for elected office.
So, X minus one months before the election, they fire Tweedledee, ensuring that Tweedledee may only run after X minus one months plus the term between elections.
I grant this is purely hypothetical. But to be quite serious, so is it quite hypothetical to presume that a former employee running for a board of trustees position would be deleterious to the boards functioning. In fact one might equally argue that having been in contact with the board intimately, they might even have a shorter period of acclimatisation and orientation for their position as trustee. (I am sure Oscar might be able to tell us if he needed much time to adjust to the ways the board worked coming from the outside, and why not the other board members current and past too)
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/14/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
To take a perfectly hypothetical case. Let us say the foundation board members are worried that notorious troublemaker Tweedledee is going to run for board of trustees membership. And despite his tendency to rouffle feathers, or perhaps because of it, they fear Tweedledee might easily do well in the elections, maybe even get in.
So the trustees have a bright idea! They hire Tweedledee, as an employee in charge of paperclips and hand him a red stapler giving him a desk at the basement of the foundation office.
Now, there is a rule that there is an X month quarantine during which former employees may not run for elected office.
So, X minus one months before the election, they fire Tweedledee, ensuring that Tweedledee may only run after X minus one months plus the term between elections.
What about Tweedledee's free will and intelligence? When Tweedledee accepts the paperclip job, he surely has weigh the pros and cons of getting hired, it's not like it came as a surprise.
Delphine
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 7/14/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
To take a perfectly hypothetical case. Let us say the foundation board members are worried that notorious troublemaker Tweedledee is going to run for board of trustees membership. And despite his tendency to rouffle feathers, or perhaps because of it, they fear Tweedledee might easily do well in the elections, maybe even get in.
So the trustees have a bright idea! They hire Tweedledee, as an employee in charge of paperclips and hand him a red stapler giving him a desk at the basement of the foundation office.
Now, there is a rule that there is an X month quarantine during which former employees may not run for elected office.
So, X minus one months before the election, they fire Tweedledee, ensuring that Tweedledee may only run after X minus one months plus the term between elections.
What about Tweedledee's free will and intelligence? When Tweedledee accepts the paperclip job, he surely has weigh the pros and cons of getting hired, it's not like it came as a surprise.
I would have concerns about the intelligence of a person who accepts a job counting paperclips. I would quesion his suitability for a responsible Board position, and let my vote be guided accordingly. :-)
Ec
On 7/15/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I would have concerns about the intelligence of a person who accepts a job counting paperclips. I would quesion his suitability for a responsible Board position, and let my vote be guided accordingly. :-)
Indeed. Let the voters factor this in to their decision-making process.
If there's consensus that there are clear disadvantages for former employees to be on the board (and I'm not sure that's the case) then have disclosure requirements. Make sure that the voters are aware who has been an employee.
On 7/14/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I would have concerns about the intelligence of a person who accepts a job counting paperclips. I would quesion his suitability for a responsible Board position, and let my vote be guided accordingly. :-)
Then, we agree ;-).
Delphine
Hoi, What you describe is really hypothetical. The WMF does not have the funds to hire all the trouble makers that we know off. We do not have the funds to hire the people to fill the positions that we have. So the scenario is not only hypothetical it is also unrealistic and as such it is even irrelevant. Even our policy of "assume good faith" argues that when your experience with an individual tells you so, you should not get him in a position to do more evil.
What we need in our Wikimedia Foundation is a good working relation between board and employees. Most of the board members are chosen from our community. There is in my opinion a need for a firewall between the organisation of the Foundation and it projects in the same way as there is a firewall between a chapter and the projects. By denying employees to stand as board member, you prevent that this firewall is undermined. This is true to a lesser extend for ex-employees and it disappears over time.
From my perspective, having employees in the Foundation play an important
role in the projects is in my opinion as bad an idea.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/14/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
There are currently seven seats.
Three are held by appointed members (Jimbo, Michael, Jan-Bart) and their terms expire on 31 December this year. From that time onwards, appointed members are appointed for terms of one year.
Three are held by elected members (Erik, Kat, Frieda) who were just elected yesterday, their terms last for two years, and will expire on 30 June 2009.
The odd one out is Ant, who was an elected member whose term was due to end 30 June this year, but she was converted to an appointed member at the last board expansion with a term expiring on 30 June 2008. At that time, Ant's appointed seat will be replaced by an elected seat.
I anticipate (based on the most recent Board expansion resolution) that the Board will expand to nine members at that time, adding another two community elected seats, with terms commencing 1 July 2008. This will result in two tranches of three elected members serving two year terms, beginning on 1 July, offset from each other by one year, and one tranche of appointed members with one year terms beginning on 1 January each year.
Fixing inadvertent top posting...
Hoi, I have supported and do support that employees and ex-employees should
not
be eligible to stand for an elected function of the Wikimedia Foundation. Ex-employees would become eligible again after a year.
This original point was made in an e-mail on the Foundation list by Jan-Bart.
Thanks, GerardM
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029433.html
A year long cooling period, perhaps even one year and a half for good measure, sounds at first hearing like a capital idea.
However, this does open theoretical avenues for abuse... strictly theoretical mind you...
To take a perfectly hypothetical case. Let us say the foundation board members are worried that notorious troublemaker Tweedledee is going to run for board of trustees membership. And despite his tendency to rouffle feathers, or perhaps because of it, they fear Tweedledee might easily do well in the elections, maybe even get in.
So the trustees have a bright idea! They hire Tweedledee, as an employee in charge of paperclips and hand him a red stapler giving him a desk at the basement of the foundation office.
Now, there is a rule that there is an X month quarantine during which former employees may not run for elected office.
So, X minus one months before the election, they fire Tweedledee, ensuring that Tweedledee may only run after X minus one months plus the term between elections.
I grant this is purely hypothetical. But to be quite serious, so is it quite hypothetical to presume that a former employee running for a board of trustees position would be deleterious to the boards functioning. In fact one might equally argue that having been in contact with the board intimately, they might even have a shorter period of acclimatisation and orientation for their position as trustee. (I am sure Oscar might be able to tell us if he needed much time to adjust to the ways the board worked coming from the outside, and why not the other board members current and past too)
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/14/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What you describe is really hypothetical. The WMF does not have the funds to hire all the trouble makers that we know off. We do not have the funds to hire the people to fill the positions that we have. So the scenario is not only hypothetical it is also unrealistic and as such it is even irrelevant. Even our policy of "assume good faith" argues that when your experience with an individual tells you so, you should not get him in a position to do more evil.
Both your mathematics and your logic fail you. As there are always a limited
number of seats available for election, there would never be a need to "hire all the trouble makers that we know off." (nice use of the word "we" there by the way)
"You" (or rather more accurately, the board, or ED, or whoever the person responsible for hiring at that precise moment in time might be) would only need to hire those persons with a *realistic* chance of getting elected...
And the point of the hypothetical example I gave would not have placed them in a position to do "more evil" (BTW, evil is a relative term, just FYI), but rather would have put them in a harmless position where they would be held busy, but would have little impact at all in anything of significance.
So though the example is hypothetical in nature, your dismissal of it falls really really far short.
What we need in our Wikimedia Foundation is a good working relation between
board and employees. Most of the board members are chosen from our community. There is in my opinion a need for a firewall between the organisation of the Foundation and it projects in the same way as there is a firewall between a chapter and the projects. By denying employees to stand as board member, you prevent that this firewall is undermined. This is true to a lesser extend for ex-employees and it disappears over time.
From my perspective, having employees in the Foundation play an important role in the projects is in my opinion as bad an idea.
Thanks, GerardM
I have absolute difficulty in grasping where you see the need for such a firewall stemming. Inasmuch as the majority of the Board members are *chosen* from the community (quite rightly, BTW) I think it is clear that rather than a firewall, we need to ensure that there is a *bond* between the Board and teh communities.
I still think a cooling off period might not be a bad idea, just from a humane perspective, to give the employee time to reflect and reinvigorate himself, but a firewall? I think not.
A totally different thing is that the communities and the Foundation have different *roles*, and *overlapping* between these roles should and must be avoided. But for that purpose, it is only necessary, and *quite* sufficient that *neither* employees nor Trustees have active roles such as arbcom membership in the communities.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
To take a perfectly hypothetical case. Let us say the foundation board members are worried that notorious troublemaker Tweedledee is going to run for board of trustees membership. And despite his tendency to rouffle feathers, or perhaps because of it, they fear Tweedledee might easily do well in the elections, maybe even get in.
So the trustees have a bright idea! They hire Tweedledee, as an employee in charge of paperclips and hand him a red stapler giving him a desk at the basement of the foundation office.
Now, there is a rule that there is an X month quarantine during which former employees may not run for elected office.
So, X minus one months before the election, they fire Tweedledee, ensuring that Tweedledee may only run after X minus one months plus the term between elections.
I grant this is purely hypothetical. But to be quite serious, so is it quite hypothetical to presume that a former employee running for a board of trustees position would be deleterious to the boards functioning. In fact one might equally argue that having been in contact with the board intimately, they might even have a shorter period of acclimatisation and orientation for their position as trustee. (I am sure Oscar might be able to tell us if he needed much time to adjust to the ways the board worked coming from the outside, and why not the other board members current and past too)
It's not the only conceivable scenario. Suppose that we hire someone for the sole task of implementing Single Log-in that we have already discussed for years. After three gruelling months he completes his task, and is no longer needed. Would it be the intention to block him from becoming a trustee? Where a former employee runs for the Board the potential conflicts will be there for all to see, and the voters will have the opportunity to reject him. If they accept him, it just means that a significant part of the voters don't have a problem with this particular individual.
I think the proposal has it backwards. I would be more concerned when a person who has just left the Board is given employment by the Board. There can be exceptions here to, but the details must be all there for everyone to see.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, I have supported and do support that employees and ex-employees should not be eligible to stand for an elected function of the Wikimedia Foundation. Ex-employees would become eligible again after a year.
I definitely do not support this; it unnecessarily punishes community members who have become involved in the foundation's corporate operations without similarly punishing those who have been active in other ways (chapters, community projects, etc).
I appreciate that you guys want to try to keep Danny out because he ruffled some feathers, but let's not take it out on the rest of us, please?
Plenty of companies have even *current* employees on the board, such as the common chairman/CEO combinations and employee/trustees of employee-owned companies; I definitely don't buy the idea that having knowledge of the operations of the organization from working inside it would somehow make it bad for someone to become involved in running it, and the idea that having been an employee makes one "unfairly" visible is just plain silly.
(Disclaimer: as a community member who is an employee of the Foundation, this proposed policy shift would obviously affect me personally. Even if I never intend to run for the board myself, being preemptively restricted in this way feels like an attack on my credibility and that of my fellows.)
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I think the proposal has it backwards. I would be more concerned when a person who has just left the Board is given employment by the Board. There can be exceptions here to, but the details must be all there for everyone to see.
Agreed -- that's where the conflict-of-interest question would lie.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
Hi Brion & All
First of all, I could imagine a lot worse people on the board then you. I just think we couldn't miss you in your current position ;)
But I do want to respond to some of your points which I don't agree with.
Brion Vibber wrote:
I appreciate that you guys want to try to keep Danny out because he ruffled some feathers, but let's not take it out on the rest of us, please?
Hold on. If the point of this excercise had been to keep Danny of the board then we would implemented this proposal before the current elections (there was enough time). That was not the intention and never has been.
Plenty of companies have even *current* employees on the board, such as the common chairman/CEO combinations and employee/trustees of employee-owned companies;
True, but one of the comments which came back after last years audit was that we should separate our board of trustees more from the daily operations and the foundation office. The same thing was confirmed by our search firm when we hired them. When checking with them about this issue the general feeling was that having (former) employees on the board would be a step back in this process on which we are now making more and more progress.
I definitely don't buy the idea that having knowledge of the operations of the organization from working inside it would somehow make it bad for someone to become involved in running it,
Well, a common scenario: 1) Person does not feel that the organisation understands his/her brilliant vision 2) Person gets fired/resigns 3) Person then tries to get on the board and make the rest of the world understand why he/she is brilliant and the rest of the world doesn't get it (Please note: this is an example and does not refer to anyone in particular!)
Another scenario would be the former employee overruling the ED within board meetings ("I know what is really going on") while not up to speed on facts or other aspects.
There are many more scenarios which are not beneficial. On the other hand there are also benefits, I happen to think that the disadvantages are not as large as the benefits.
and the idea that having been an employee makes one "unfairly" visible is just plain silly.
Hmmm interesting. I would argue that Cary Bass (sorry to use you as an example Bastique) has become much more visible within the community once he started his job. This is because his Foundation salary allows him to spend his working day within the community (as this is his job). This visibility would likely result in more votes when election time comes around if he were a candidate. The Foundation has therefore paid for part of his campaign. Thats not (say it with me ;) "silly" but more something which is deemed unfair by a lot of people.
(Disclaimer: as a community member who is an employee of the Foundation, this proposed policy shift would obviously affect me personally. Even if I never intend to run for the board myself, being preemptively restricted in this way feels like an attack on my credibility and that of my fellows.)
I happen to think that they are good reasons. Just to make sure that we all understand: I would propose a waiting period of one year, not indefinite. I don't see how it has to do with credibility.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I think the proposal has it backwards. I would be more concerned when a person who has just left the Board is given employment by the Board. There can be exceptions here to, but the details must be all there for everyone to see.
Agreed -- that's where the conflict-of-interest question would lie.
Just to make things clear, this is another issue which also requires clear guidelines and I agree that there is a potential conflict of interest which we should guard against.
On 7/16/07, Jan-Bart de Vreede wiki@devreede.net wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Plenty of companies have even *current* employees on the board, such as the common chairman/CEO combinations and employee/trustees of employee-owned companies;
True, but one of the comments which came back after last years audit was that we should separate our board of trustees more from the daily operations and the foundation office. The same thing was confirmed by our search firm when we hired them. When checking with them about this issue the general feeling was that having (former) employees on the board would be a step back in this process on which we are now making more and more progress.
Why is "former" in parentheses? Did the search firm specifically say that having former employees on the board would be a step back? I really don't follow this line of logic.
I definitely don't buy the idea that having knowledge of the operations of the organization from working inside it would somehow make it bad for someone to become involved in running it,
Well, a common scenario:
- Person does not feel that the organisation understands his/her
brilliant vision 2) Person gets fired/resigns 3) Person then tries to get on the board and make the rest of the world understand why he/she is brilliant and the rest of the world doesn't get it (Please note: this is an example and does not refer to anyone in particular!)
Whether or not that person should be allowed on the board seems to depend on whether or not ey really had a brilliant vision which was being ignored. Now sure, we could argue over whether or not a popular vote is the best way to decide that, but that's much more relevant to a question of who should be allowed to vote and not who should be allowed to run.
Another scenario would be the former employee overruling the ED within board meetings ("I know what is really going on") while not up to speed on facts or other aspects.
So get them up to speed on facts or other aspects. And don't allow them to overrule the ED. Putting people who think they know more than they do on the board is a bad idea, but I see no reason to believe that former employees are any more likely to be this type of person.
There are many more scenarios which are not beneficial. On the other hand there are also benefits, I happen to think that the disadvantages are not as large as the benefits.
I can come up with a million scenarios in which a former employee makes a bad candidate, and a million more in which a non-employee makes a bad candidate. If I had to try to balance the benefits and detriments I'd guess that former employees would tend to make *better* board members, however I don't think it matters anyway. As long as it's reasonably foreseeable that a former employee might make a good board member, the rules shouldn't be prejudiced against them.
On 16/07/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
There are many more scenarios which are not beneficial. On the other hand there are also benefits, I happen to think that the disadvantages are not as large as the benefits.
I can come up with a million scenarios in which a former employee makes a bad candidate, and a million more in which a non-employee makes a bad candidate. If I had to try to balance the benefits and detriments I'd guess that former employees would tend to make *better* board members, however I don't think it matters anyway. As long as it's reasonably foreseeable that a former employee might make a good board member, the rules shouldn't be prejudiced against them.
Indeed.
We're trying to write a rule here to avoid the potential harm from a malicious or troublemaking ex-employee. I think that, on the whole, the disadvantages (incompetent or evil) are a) pretty rare, and b) the sort of thing that an election process tends to work against anyway. We're not proposing a rule to say "bad candidates shouldn't run", we're proposing one which says "all of this group are bad candidates and shouldn't run". And that's really not a good idea for any group which has the potential to produce good candidates - indeed, it's easy to imagine a hypothetical excellent candidate coming out of that.
But the handy thing is, we have a little referendum on this. We had a chance to ask the community, indirectly, "can an ex-employee be a decent candidate?"
And whilst I do accept this isn't "about Danny", perhaps you will pardon this note: 29.2% of the community who registered an opinion thought that an outspoken ex-employee was worthy of a seat on the board. We appointed people on 30.1%. On the whole, the difference in votes between Frieda, Oscar, Michael and Danny was in the noise - it was virtually chance deciding which one of them won. There isn't overwhelming support there, but neither is there any kind of deep distrust.
I am *deeply* uncomfortable with us setting a rule which says "three tenths of the community voted in ways we don't think they should have".
2007/7/16, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
On 16/07/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
And whilst I do accept this isn't "about Danny", perhaps you will pardon this note: 29.2% of the community who registered an opinion thought that an outspoken ex-employee was worthy of a seat on the board. We appointed people on 30.1%. On the whole, the difference in votes between Frieda, Oscar, Michael and Danny was in the noise - it was virtually chance deciding which one of them won. There isn't overwhelming support there, but neither is there any kind of deep distrust.
Yes. And in fact the diffrences of the numbers of votes for Dany (no. 6) and Frieda (no. 3) is just 37 votes. It is just 0.88% of all votes... I personally have a feeling that it was just a matter of luck who won the election for 3rd possiton. The difference between Oscar and Frieda is just 20 votes - it is less than 0.5% of votes...
Yes. And in fact the diffrences of the numbers of votes for Dany (no. 6) and Frieda (no. 3) is just 37 votes. It is just 0.88% of all votes... I personally have a feeling that it was just a matter of luck who won the election for 3rd possiton. The difference between Oscar and Frieda is just 20 votes - it is less than 0.5% of votes...
It was luck. It's simply a result of which people happened to vote. If you get a large enough turnout, the error caused by the people voting not being a representative sample of the whole electorate becomes insignificant. We didn't get a large enough turnout.
I think this is one of the main problems with approval voting - the errors are magnified by the fact that there is no way to tell the difference between "this person is great!" and "this person will do, I suppose...". A different voting system, or a 2 round approval system would probably help. As would improving turnout, I suppose.
On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
It was luck. It's simply a result of which people happened to vote. If you get a large enough turnout, the error caused by the people voting not being a representative sample of the whole electorate becomes insignificant. We didn't get a large enough turnout.
I think that luck is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that a large number of people who only know the candidates by general reputation thought they all sounded fine, and voted for this group, and that people closer to the community actually did have a preference and expressed it. The general public votes more or less washed out, due to lack of information, and the "insider" votes swayed the election.
OR
The insider votes were swamped by noise from outsiders, or by non- rational preferences based on order on the ballot or whatever.
We just don't know. I think it is not safe to assume either luck or expression of preference.
--Jimbo
It was luck. It's simply a result of which people happened to vote. If you get a large enough turnout, the error caused by the people voting not being a representative sample of the whole electorate becomes insignificant. We didn't get a large enough turnout.
I think that luck is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that a large number of people who only know the candidates by general reputation thought they all sounded fine, and voted for this group, and that people closer to the community actually did have a preference and expressed it. The general public votes more or less washed out, due to lack of information, and the "insider" votes swayed the election.
OR
The insider votes were swamped by noise from outsiders, or by non- rational preferences based on order on the ballot or whatever.
We just don't know. I think it is not safe to assume either luck or expression of preference.
Just to clarify, I mean who out of the candidates that were all within 37 votes of 3rd place won the seat was luck. The top 2 won cleanly. I don't think there is any alternative to describing it as luck. And significant demographic will have more than 37 voters in it, so you can't explain it by what kind of people vote to who.
2007/7/16, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
We just don't know. I think it is not safe to assume either luck or expression of preference.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." :-)
Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947.
Anyway, it would be interesting to use the election votes' information for some statistical analysis. As I understand, the all data who voted for whom cannot be made public, it would be interesting to get access to a trusted person to make such a detailed statistical analysis...
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
2007/7/16, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
We just don't know. I think it is not safe to assume either luck or expression of preference.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." :-)
Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947.
Churchill was very good at coining clichés.
Ec
On 7/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
2007/7/16, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
We just don't know. I think it is not safe to assume either luck or expression of preference.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." :-)
Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947.
Churchill was very good at coining clichés.
Arguably Churchill was wrong, btw.
I like Thucydides line about the rule of the 5000, echoed by later roman historians that during the brief rule of the 5000 Athens was ruled better than at any other time (meaning during the democracy or during the rule of 30).
The fact that blood based aristrocracies tend to corrupt with time, does not mean that functionally meritocratic systems do not rule better than the raw mob.
This isn't very far off-topic, btw. Wikipedia currently has a selective franchise somewhat like the early American Colonies, but based on community service rather than land-ownership.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Jul 16, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 7/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
2007/7/16, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com:
We just don't know. I think it is not safe to assume either luck or expression of preference.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." :-)
Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947.
Churchill was very good at coining clichés.
Arguably Churchill was wrong, btw.
I like Thucydides line about the rule of the 5000, echoed by later roman historians that during the brief rule of the 5000 Athens was ruled better than at any other time (meaning during the democracy or during the rule of 30).
The fact that blood based aristrocracies tend to corrupt with time, does not mean that functionally meritocratic systems do not rule better than the raw mob.
This isn't very far off-topic, btw. Wikipedia currently has a selective franchise somewhat like the early American Colonies, but based on community service rather than land-ownership.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Most interesting post I've read on this list in weeks. Thank you.
-Dan Rosenthal
My opinion on the issue:
I agree that there are some organizations and some circumstances under which there are valid organizational conflict of interest issues which make it a good idea to keep ex-employees off the board for some period of time.
I don't believe that a good case has been made that the Wikimedia Foundation is one of those organizations. I oppose imposing such a ban at this time.
I am willing to be convinced otherwise, and this is a good discussion to have. I would like to know if there is anyone who wasn't opposed to Brad's run this time who feel that the rule is necessary. A wider grass-roots interest in such a ban would be more convincing, to me, than interest which is hard to separate from the opposition to the particular person.
Thanks.
Hoi, You misrepresent what is proposed. What is proposed is that employees and ex-employees for a period of one year are not eligible to stand for the position of board member.
As a consequence your whole argument does not address the issue.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/16/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/07/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
There are many more scenarios which are not beneficial. On the other hand there are also benefits, I happen to think that the disadvantages are not as large as the benefits.
I can come up with a million scenarios in which a former employee makes a bad candidate, and a million more in which a non-employee makes a bad candidate. If I had to try to balance the benefits and detriments I'd guess that former employees would tend to make *better* board members, however I don't think it matters anyway. As long as it's reasonably foreseeable that a former employee might make a good board member, the rules shouldn't be prejudiced against them.
Indeed.
We're trying to write a rule here to avoid the potential harm from a malicious or troublemaking ex-employee. I think that, on the whole, the disadvantages (incompetent or evil) are a) pretty rare, and b) the sort of thing that an election process tends to work against anyway. We're not proposing a rule to say "bad candidates shouldn't run", we're proposing one which says "all of this group are bad candidates and shouldn't run". And that's really not a good idea for any group which has the potential to produce good candidates - indeed, it's easy to imagine a hypothetical excellent candidate coming out of that.
But the handy thing is, we have a little referendum on this. We had a chance to ask the community, indirectly, "can an ex-employee be a decent candidate?"
And whilst I do accept this isn't "about Danny", perhaps you will pardon this note: 29.2% of the community who registered an opinion thought that an outspoken ex-employee was worthy of a seat on the board. We appointed people on 30.1%. On the whole, the difference in votes between Frieda, Oscar, Michael and Danny was in the noise - it was virtually chance deciding which one of them won. There isn't overwhelming support there, but neither is there any kind of deep distrust.
I am *deeply* uncomfortable with us setting a rule which says "three tenths of the community voted in ways we don't think they should have".
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You misrepresent what is proposed. What is proposed is that employees and ex-employees for a period of one year are not eligible to stand for the position of board member.
As a consequence your whole argument does not address the issue.
My apologies - the one year (or six months, or whatever) is still a little shaky to my mind in terms of its justification, but has the excellent merit of being a nice clear "cooling off" period. It has much less of the air of presupposing malice, and does prevent hastiness. It's a bit odd, but it's measured and sensible.
It also allows us to apply it fairly to contractors and interns and so on - as it is, unilaterally banning someone who worked as an intern for a few months seems excessive, and you can get into all sorts of quibbles about whether or not a contractor was employed, etc. And perhaps, for transparency's sake, we could apply it to any potential employee of a chapter?
"If you have received money for services rendered to the Foundation or a recognised local chapter, not counting reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenditure, then you cannot run for a position on the WMF Board of Trustees for [one year] from the date of the most recent payment" - or something like that.
(And we should *certainly* have a converse policy - once on the board, you can't receive employment from the Foundation or a chapter within a set period! That's by far the bigger conflict of interest...)
*However*, I note that under your proposed rule Danny would still have been unable to run, and as such my argument is still pretty much exactly the same - 29.2% of the electorate voted for someone you would want us to have ruled out of the running, almost enough to win him a seat, and we need to consider the implications of that little detail.
Hoi, There is a long list of people who say that Wikipedia is doomed, that it will not survive another year. Some people leave in disgust, some people start their own project. For the record I have started another project and sadly it is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation and I do think that Wiktionary will exist in a years time. I also think that Wikipedia will do great in the coming year.
Given that Wikipedia grows rapidly, we need people who have a positive view on what can be done. This means that people who are blatantly negative about the organisation should not stand for election. When like Danny you leave the employment in a huff and insists on running with the slogan: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" it does not demonstrate a positive towards our organisation. Given the rather public outing of what are in his mind dirty linen, the negative attitude is underlined even more.
With an embargo to stand for a year, the immediacy of these kind of threads are made less acute and potent.
The fact that many voted for Danny make no difference to the argument, the only thing that is clear is that not enough people voted for him.
I have seen objections raised to ex-board members become employees of the Foundation. This is something I do not understand. In order to want to become an employee, the Foundation has a vacancy and has to offer a job. Given the high profile nature of such a job, it will not be a decision made only by the executive director but also by the board itself. In order to WANT to be employed in this way, a person has to have a positive attitude towards the Foundation and its projects. Such a person has an intimate knowledge of the organisation and is likely to be able to keep his nose clean. It also makes a difference what type of job is offered, when there is a position of "musical director", Oscar would be eminently capable of taking this job and it would be silly not to consider him if he were available.
I also fail to see why there is a conflict of interest. When a board member exits gracefully from the board or chapter, it may be exactly in the interest of the Foundation, a Chapter to offer a job. It is not as if there is a promise that such a job will be available.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/16/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You misrepresent what is proposed. What is proposed is that employees
and
ex-employees for a period of one year are not eligible to stand for the position of board member.
As a consequence your whole argument does not address the issue.
My apologies - the one year (or six months, or whatever) is still a little shaky to my mind in terms of its justification, but has the excellent merit of being a nice clear "cooling off" period. It has much less of the air of presupposing malice, and does prevent hastiness. It's a bit odd, but it's measured and sensible.
It also allows us to apply it fairly to contractors and interns and so on - as it is, unilaterally banning someone who worked as an intern for a few months seems excessive, and you can get into all sorts of quibbles about whether or not a contractor was employed, etc. And perhaps, for transparency's sake, we could apply it to any potential employee of a chapter?
"If you have received money for services rendered to the Foundation or a recognised local chapter, not counting reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenditure, then you cannot run for a position on the WMF Board of Trustees for [one year] from the date of the most recent payment" - or something like that.
(And we should *certainly* have a converse policy - once on the board, you can't receive employment from the Foundation or a chapter within a set period! That's by far the bigger conflict of interest...)
*However*, I note that under your proposed rule Danny would still have been unable to run, and as such my argument is still pretty much exactly the same - 29.2% of the electorate voted for someone you would want us to have ruled out of the running, almost enough to win him a seat, and we need to consider the implications of that little detail.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Given that Wikipedia grows rapidly, we need people who have a positive view on what can be done. This means that people who are blatantly negative about the organisation should not stand for election.
First off, calling him "blatantly negative about the organisation" is really quite prejudicial wording. He strongly felt we were doing things wrong, that we were muddling around, there's no question. He felt the board as previously constituted had handled things badly and in some cases irresponsibly. And, on the whole, he expressed this pretty strongly at times. But this is objecting to some aspects of the governance; he wasn't running on a platform of "tear down the foundation and let's all go home", but on one of "let's make this damn thing work".
You may disagree with this - that's fair, so do a lot of people. But to give the impression his candidacy was some kind of malicious attack on the Foundation is simply unfair and insulting. His views on how WMF is run and what it should be doing are different from yours - that's fine, they're different from mine in many ways, too. But they're honestly held, he has support from a chunk of the community, and he did run with the desire to make the Foundation work better.
When like Danny you leave the employment in a huff and insists on running with the slogan: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" it does not demonstrate a positive towards our organisation.
I am confused here. Your problem seems to be with Danny's "negative attitude", not with the fact that he's a former employee. Unless you're assuming that ex-employees are much more likely to think the Foundation is messed up, these two really don't correlate well.
But as to "people who are blatantly negative... should not stand for election", well, this is a bit weird. I cannot understand the point of that objection; it's an election. we elect people to decide aspects of fundamental governance and organisational policy. Of *course* some of them are going to have strong views; of course some of them are going to say "we are doing this all wrong, we need to make a big change".
The solution to this isn't to ban anyone who doesn't say "more of the same, please, but bigger and faster and better!". This'll just lead us into navel-gazing pointlessness.
I mean, Danny's candidature was by no means the only controversial one. I'm pretty sure the proposal for "write off anything that isn't Wikipedia", which was even more "we've been systematically doing the wrong thing" upset more people, and would have caused much, much more discord in the community and on the Board had they been elected. But I don't see a proposal which would have banned them.
Given the rather public outing of what are in his mind dirty linen, the negative attitude is underlined even more.
Yes, there were issues with Danny bringing out "dirty linen", and there is scope here for a sensible discussion on what is and isn't appropriate when former employees run. But on the whole, one wonders if "They did lots of things I wasn't happy with and I felt were pushing the bounds of legality. No, I won't talk about them." wouldn't have made everyone involved - both him and the Foundation - look worse!
The fact that many voted for Danny make no difference to the argument, the only thing that is clear is that not enough people voted for him.
"Not enough" here being a few dozen; it's hard to say that this is a clear and resounding win for Frieda over Oscar, Michael or Danny!
I also fail to see why there is a conflict of interest. When a board member exits gracefully from the board or chapter, it may be exactly in the interest of the Foundation, a Chapter to offer a job. It is not as if there is a promise that such a job will be available.
This is pretty much a classic conflict of interest as it applies to elected representatives; you stand down, and walk straight into a job that was created under you, or with one of the people you used to regulate. It may be entirely legitimate. In most cases, it probably is - you're more likely to employ someone you've dealt with before, all things being equal.
But it's impossible to tell this; no matter how transparent the involved parties are, there's always an element of murkiness about it all. It's not uncommon to have (or at least have *recommended*) cooling-off periods for this sort of thing, simply to remain above reproach and avoid that ambiguity.
2007/7/17, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Given that Wikipedia grows rapidly, we need people who have a positive view on what can be done. This means that people who are blatantly negative about the organisation should not stand for election. When like Danny you leave the employment in a huff and insists on running with the slogan: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" it does not demonstrate a positive towards our organisation. Given the rather public outing of what are in his mind dirty linen, the negative attitude is underlined even more.
Well - in fact you can be not happy with the current state of organization or even think that current Board is leading the entire organization in wrong direction - but still be devoted to the general idea of Wikimedia projects. If you'd like let to candidate only people who always say they are happy with current Board's direction and decisions you are about to get rid of all the people with different point of view, who are brave enough to communicate it... Criticism of what the current Board is doing is IMHO very important - and should not be called automatically "negative attitude".
On Mon, July 16, 2007 23:25, GerardM wrote:
This means that people who are blatantly negative about the organisation should not stand for election. When like Danny you leave the employment in a huff and insists on running with the slogan: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" it does not demonstrate a positive towards our organisation. Given the rather public outing of what are in his mind dirty linen, the negative attitude is underlined even more.
And again you, basically, slander Danny. I do wish you would stop this unreasonable behaviour. Firstly, the statement "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" was a perfectly reasonable one - it was and still is clear to many in the communities that the openness of the Board / Foundation and its actions is lacking in many areas and - arguably - it was reasonable for a candidate to raise this as 'their' issue in the recent election. How a voter views this is up to them, not you. Secondly, it is *you* who sees this as 'negative' I certainly don't. All the candidates - as I have noted previously - had the best interests of the Foundation and projects at heart and therefore, by definition, are acting and promoting their *positive* solution to improving them. That you personally disagree with their position doesn't detract in any way from their good intentions.
I also fail to see why there is a conflict of interest. When a board member exits gracefully from the board or chapter, it may be exactly in the interest of the Foundation, a Chapter to offer a job. It is not as if there is a promise that such a job will be available.
Except that as the board that the person has just left will have set the parameters for that position and thus the ex-board member has privileged information about it to the detriment of other possible applicants (who may not even be made aware of the possible recruitment in the first place). This is why such behaviour is banned in many jurisdictions.
Alison
On 16/07/07, Jan-Bart de Vreede wiki@devreede.net wrote:
I appreciate that you guys want to try to keep Danny out because he ruffled some feathers, but let's not take it out on the rest of us, please?
Hold on. If the point of this excercise had been to keep Danny of the board then we would implemented this proposal before the current elections (there was enough time). That was not the intention and never has been.
The original discussion arose as a result of Danny's resignation and intention to run. He is one of two former employees of the Foundation who have any notable role in the community (the other being Brad, for those looking blank, and Danny has much higher profile than him). It's being heavily pushed by Gerard. who has very strong opinions on Danny's fitness to run, and has indicated on multiple occasions that he feels his candidature was somehow wrong.
I understand that there *are* broader aspects to this, but I don't think we can disassociate them entirely from the specific case... and hard cases always make bad law.
Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
I appreciate that you guys want to try to keep Danny out because he ruffled some feathers, but let's not take it out on the rest of us, please?
Hold on. If the point of this excercise had been to keep Danny of the board then we would implemented this proposal before the current elections (there was enough time). That was not the intention and never has been.
In retrospect it wasn't needed anyway. Between the people who had been antagonized by Danny, and those who felt that it was wrong for a former employee to run, his vote count was not enough. Some of us would say that it shows that the system works.
Plenty of companies have even *current* employees on the board, such as the common chairman/CEO combinations and employee/trustees of employee-owned companies;
True, but one of the comments which came back after last years audit was that we should separate our board of trustees more from the daily operations and the foundation office. The same thing was confirmed by our search firm when we hired them. When checking with them about this issue the general feeling was that having (former) employees on the board would be a step back in this process on which we are now making more and more progress.
Until that progress could be made there was little choice.
I definitely don't buy the idea that having knowledge of the operations of the organization from working inside it would somehow make it bad for someone to become involved in running it,
Well, a common scenario:
- Person does not feel that the organisation understands his/her
brilliant vision 2) Person gets fired/resigns 3) Person then tries to get on the board and make the rest of the world understand why he/she is brilliant and the rest of the world doesn't get it (Please note: this is an example and does not refer to anyone in particular!)
This kind of person is often more effective at rallying opponents than supporters.
Another scenario would be the former employee overruling the ED within board meetings ("I know what is really going on") while not up to speed on facts or other aspects.
How can a single Board member overrule the ED; if it happens it should be a collective action of the Board.
Ec
On 16/07/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In retrospect it wasn't needed anyway. Between the people who had been antagonized by Danny, and those who felt that it was wrong for a former employee to run, his vote count was not enough. Some of us would say that it shows that the system works.
Bingo!
Whether the "undesirable" person is an ex-employee or not, if they *are* truly undesirable, then the community won't elect them. If they are elected*, well, we have to ask ourselves why we find this person a problem but the broad community supports them!
* Remember, to all intents and purposes, we elected half a dozen people in this election, and then looked really hard to find the top three :-)
Hmm. Now *why* exactly did they say that? I'm sure that they didn't say it just because they felt like it, but rather, that there were reasons behind that statement. If those reasons are made public (as much as it is permitted by common sense, of course), then we would know why adding a restriction for [ex-]employees has its benefits.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jan-Bart de Vreede Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 12:02 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Future Board election procedures and guidelines
[snip begin]
True, but one of the comments which came back after last years audit was that we should separate our board of trustees more from the daily operations and the foundation office. The same thing was confirmed by our search firm when we hired them. When checking with them about this issue the general feeling was that having (former) employees on the board would be a step back in this process on which we are now making more and more progress.
[snip end]
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/17/07, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. Now *why* exactly did they say that? I'm sure that they didn't say it just because they felt like it, but rather, that there were reasons behind that statement. If those reasons are made public (as much as it is permitted by common sense, of course), then we would know why adding a restriction for [ex-]employees has its benefits.
Well, the first thing would be to ask them to clarify whether they indeed meant current *and* former employees, or merely current employees.
I think the argument for not allowing concurrent employment and trusteeship is indeed strong, and definitely the case for striving to make that explicit is well founded.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/17/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I think the argument for not allowing concurrent employment and trusteeship is indeed strong, and definitely the case for striving to make that explicit is well founded.
As an afterthought; rather than allow simultaneus roles of employee and trustee, it would be far preferable to give the trustee an outright honorarium.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Tue, July 17, 2007 06:26, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
As an afterthought; rather than allow simultaneus roles of employee and trustee, it would be far preferable to give the trustee an outright honorarium.
If a Board member was to receive an honorarium then it would be contrary to the law in many countries (eg. UK). The fact of being on the board of a non-profit is that latter bit - *non*-profit.
Alison
Hoi, An organisation is a legal entity, its books show a profit or not. When someone is making paid for doing a job, it does not equate that a profit is being made. It is not even true that a board member could not be paid a salary because otherwise the legal entity is an for profit organisation..
The argument does not make sense.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/18/07, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Tue, July 17, 2007 06:26, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
As an afterthought; rather than allow simultaneus roles of employee and trustee, it would be far preferable to give the trustee an outright honorarium.
If a Board member was to receive an honorarium then it would be contrary to the law in many countries (eg. UK). The fact of being on the board of a non-profit is that latter bit - *non*-profit.
Alison
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
An organisation is a legal entity, its books show a profit or not. When someone is making paid for doing a job, it does not equate that a profit is being made. It is not even true that a board member could not be paid a salary because otherwise the legal entity is an for profit organisation..
The argument does not make sense.
Exactly. Non-profit means there aren't shareholders getting paid dividends. That is, you can't get given money by virtue of owning part of the organisation. You can get given money in exchange for services rendered.
That said, I don't think WMF paying its board members would have any considerable advantage.
On Wed, July 18, 2007 15:52, GerardM wrote:
It is not even true that a board member could not be paid a salary because otherwise the legal entity is an for profit organisation.
OK, I might have slightly muddied the two points there in the way I worded my point, but to clarify: in the UK (and, no doubt, some other jurisdictions) it is not permissible to pay the board member of a non-profit / charitable organisation for their being a board member, whereas with a 'for profit' organisation this would be normal.
Alison
On 7/19/07, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Wed, July 18, 2007 15:52, GerardM wrote:
It is not even true that a board member could not be paid a salary because otherwise the legal entity is an for profit organisation.
OK, I might have slightly muddied the two points there in the way I worded my point, but to clarify: in the UK (and, no doubt, some other jurisdictions) it is not permissible to pay the board member of a non-profit / charitable organisation for their being a board member, whereas with a 'for profit' organisation this would be normal.
That's correct, you can't pay a board member for being a board member, since (in just about every case) the board are the non-profit corporation equivalent of shareholders in a for-profit corporation. Employees can get paid in any type of corporation.
Hoi, You can choose not to pay for the work done in the role of board member, you can pay for the work done as personnel.
Where you state that it is a given that you cannot pay a board member, you forget that it is typically a matter of how the by laws are phrased. It is very often a matter of custom not of law. Also when you consider the big salaries paid to directors of not for profits, the argument that these organisations are largely there to pay these salaries have some merit.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/19/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Wed, July 18, 2007 15:52, GerardM wrote:
It is not even true that a board member could not be paid a salary because otherwise the legal entity is an for profit
organisation.
OK, I might have slightly muddied the two points there in the way I
worded
my point, but to clarify: in the UK (and, no doubt, some other jurisdictions) it is not permissible to pay the board member of a non-profit / charitable organisation for their being a board member, whereas with a 'for profit' organisation this would be normal.
That's correct, you can't pay a board member for being a board member, since (in just about every case) the board are the non-profit corporation equivalent of shareholders in a for-profit corporation. Employees can get paid in any type of corporation.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, July 17, 2007 06:26, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
As an afterthought; rather than allow simultaneus roles of employee and trustee, it would be far preferable to give the trustee an outright honorarium.
If a Board member was to receive an honorarium then it would be contrary to the law in many countries (eg. UK). The fact of being on the board of a non-profit is that latter bit - *non*-profit.
It's not always the case that a Trustee is prevented from receiving a fair salary for work done. Some places make a specific exclusion for that.
Nevertheless, even where it is legally allowed, the by-laws may provide differently. Where a non-profit allows it the gap in perceptions can widen very quickly.
Ec
On 7/17/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the first thing would be to ask them to clarify whether they indeed meant current *and* former employees, or merely current employees.
I would forget about the later addendum and focus on what they originally said, which to me seems directed at the members of the Board themselves.
Bear in mind that if the Board were actually separated from the day to day running of the Foundation and the office, as the comment following the audit suggested, then having former employees on the Board would not be a problem.
On 7/16/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
I definitely do not support this; it unnecessarily punishes community members who have become involved in the foundation's corporate operations without similarly punishing those who have been active in other ways (chapters, community projects, etc).
Oscar resigned from his position as head of the Dutch chapter when he joined the Board; Frieda will not stand for the presidency of the Italian chapter again in November. This is not a "punishment", it is simply a clear separation of roles that helps to avoid conflicts of interest in many decision-making processes where chapters are involved.
Plenty of companies have even *current* employees on the board, such as the common chairman/CEO combinations and employee/trustees of employee-owned companies
In non-profit governance, this is very uncommon. For instance, a publication by the LA-based center for non-profit management notes:
"Should employees be board members? Although California law allows employees to serve as board members, in practice, nonprofit organizations rarely have employees on the board, with the possible exception of the executive director. Having an employee on the board is not recommended. It increases the potential for conflicts of interest. Perhaps most important, it may interfere with the board's ability to oversee and evaluate the chief executive's performance. Also, because the executive director reports to the board, having employees who report to the executive director also serve on the board can confuse the lines of decision-making within the organization. There are other ways for board members to work with and receive information from employees. Employees can serve on board committees, attend joint board and staff retreats, and contribute to the evaluation of the executive director. Many funders (including certain government departments, United Ways, and many foundations) will not fund organizations that have employees serving as board members."
http://www.npsolutions.org/resources/grgs2002.pdf
This article by Kori Rodley Irons also highlights some of the problems when employees join the Board of a non-profit:
"One of the main challenges that happen when changes such as these occur is that previously established relationships can create a break-down in boundaries and professionalism. For example, a staff member who becomes a board member may still feel an allegiance and have strong ties to former co-workers. As a board member, he or she may be privy to information that isn't necessarily suitable for staff members, but may feel compelled to share with staffers, or be confused about what is and is not appropriate."
"Similarly, a board member who leaves to take a staff position may feel like he or she can go directly to former peers with concerns and ideas, circumnavigating the employee chain-of-command and undermining the authority of the executive director (unless he or she becomes the executive director and this creates a different, unique set of potential problems.) While not everything can be avoided, anticipating where the problems may arise can help to prepare and address the specifics of new roles."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/102549/when_board_members_become_st...
The idea here is not to prohibit employees from partaking in Board-level governance, but to introduce a reasonable waiting period to avoid staff positions being used as campaign platforms, and intermittent operational issues washing into election times. I support such a waiting period, but also for Board members becoming employees: to be fair, it should be fully symmetrical.
I definitely don't buy the idea that having knowledge of the operations of the organization from working inside it would somehow make it bad for someone to become involved in running it, and the idea that having been an employee makes one "unfairly" visible is just plain silly.
The Board serves in an oversight function, which is distinctly different from "running" the day-to-day operations. It is this very difference that you yourself have reminded the Board a couple of times is important to establish and maintain. The idea of employees running an election campaign while or shortly after serving in an operational capacity is running counter to that very notion.
(Disclaimer: as a community member who is an employee of the Foundation, this proposed policy shift would obviously affect me personally. Even if I never intend to run for the board myself, being preemptively restricted in this way feels like an attack on my credibility and that of my fellows.)
It is not at all intended as such, and I wonder if the aforementioned symmetrical nature of such a policy would somewhat alleviate this particular concern? It is certainly not intended as a "Lex Danny", which is exactly why we have waited until after the election before even seriously discussing it.
On 7/17/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/16/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
I definitely do not support this; it unnecessarily punishes community members who have become involved in the foundation's corporate operations without similarly punishing those who have been active in other ways (chapters, community projects, etc).
Oscar resigned from his position as head of the Dutch chapter when he joined the Board; Frieda will not stand for the presidency of the Italian chapter again in November. This is not a "punishment", it is simply a clear separation of roles that helps to avoid conflicts of interest in many decision-making processes where chapters are involved.
Indeed, that is quite on point, but not in they way you think. There is no suggestion offered, nor do I think there will be, that people involved in chapter governance not run for the board of trustees, untill having been separated from that role for a year...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/17/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 7/16/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
I definitely do not support this; it unnecessarily punishes community members who have become involved in the foundation's corporate operations without similarly punishing those who have been active in other ways (chapters, community projects, etc).
Oscar resigned from his position as head of the Dutch chapter when he joined the Board; Frieda will not stand for the presidency of the Italian chapter again in November. This is not a "punishment", it is simply a clear separation of roles that helps to avoid conflicts of interest in many decision-making processes where chapters are involved.
Indeed, that is quite on point, but not in they way you think. There is no suggestion offered, nor do I think there will be, that people involved in chapter governance not run for the board of trustees, untill having been separated from that role for a year...
And there shouldn't be any such suggestion. Candidates running for board positions are asked what their previous involvement with non-profits was, chapters are in the large majority acting as non-profits, I believe it makes no difference whether someone runs for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation with an experience in being part of Wikimedia chapter governance or SOS Children governance. Also, would one prevent the CEO of <insert name of NGO here> to run for a position in the board of the Foundation? I don't think so. Please remember that Wikimedia Chapters and Wikimedia Foundation are independant organisations. Being involved in the politics of one does not necessarily meain being involved in the politic of the other.
Back to the subject at hand, as one of those that this change in policy would effect, and although I understand Brion's point, I tend to agree with Jan-Bart and Erik, and especially Michael Snow's suggestion of a six months cooling off (Andrew's word) between an employee leaving the Foundation and their running for the board. It might seem awkward for those of us who are already "in", as it would yet come as something we didn't think about when we signed in to get the job, but I do believe that it is a good firewall between board governance and everyday executive matters, by providing on both parts (that of the organisation and that of the individual), a little time to put things in perspective.
Delphine
On 7/17/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Oscar resigned from his position as head of the Dutch chapter when he joined the Board; Frieda will not stand for the presidency of the Italian chapter again in November. This is not a "punishment", it is simply a clear separation of roles that helps to avoid conflicts of interest in many decision-making processes where chapters are involved.
Indeed, that is quite on point, but not in they way you think. There is no suggestion offered, nor do I think there will be, that people
involved
in chapter governance not run for the board of trustees, untill having been separated from that role for a year...
And there shouldn't be any such suggestion. Candidates running for board positions are asked what their previous involvement with non-profits was, chapters are in the large majority acting as non-profits, I believe it makes no difference whether someone runs for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation with an experience in being part of Wikimedia chapter governance or SOS Children governance. Also, would one prevent the CEO of <insert name of NGO here> to run for a position in the board of the Foundation? I don't think so. Please remember that Wikimedia Chapters and Wikimedia Foundation are independant organisations. Being involved in the politics of one does not necessarily meain being involved in the politic of the other.
Fully agreed.
Back to the subject at hand, as one of those that this change in
policy would effect, and although I understand Brion's point, I tend to agree with Jan-Bart and Erik, and especially Michael Snow's suggestion of a six months cooling off (Andrew's word) between an employee leaving the Foundation and their running for the board. It might seem awkward for those of us who are already "in", as it would yet come as something we didn't think about when we signed in to get the job, but I do believe that it is a good firewall between board governance and everyday executive matters, by providing on both parts (that of the organisation and that of the individual), a little time to put things in perspective.
Like I think I said in my first posting in this thread, I think a cooling off period is not in itself a bad idea; though I personally think it is best done out of sympathy and compassion, rather than alarm. A "sabbatical" is much preferred over the term "firewall" IMNSHO. And as for length, 6 months is a pretty fair number.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Next elections are in june/july 2008. In december, the seats of Jimbo, Jan-Bart and Michael are up to renewal. These are appointed seats.
Ant
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have elections coming up again in December 2007? -Dan
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I agree with Brad, endorse his suggestion, and am pleased to help with this discussion any way that I can.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:32 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Future Board election procedures and guidelines
Let me add my congratulations to the successful candidates in the Board election that just concluded, and my thanks to everyone who participated -- including all the candidates, my fellow election committee members, and the voters. (It feels odd in a wiki context to actually write "voters" rather than ! voters. :) )
I have seen some references in this and other threads to people wanting to discuss some possible changes to the way in which future elections are run, based on lessons that we have learned this time. This year, the Election Committee members were selected only a few days before the election timetable began, which meant that we had comparatively little time to discuss the proposed election procedures before we had to get the process moving. Despite this, my opinion is that everything went reasonably smoothly.
Nonetheless, and I emphasize that I am speaking here only for myself and not officially on behalf of the Election Committee or anyone else, I think it would definitely be a good practice to plan for future elections much further in advance than we were able to do this year.
I suggest that there be an on-wiki dialog regarding some of the matters concerning the Board Election procedures that contributors might (or might not) want to change for future years. The purpose would not be to have an endless debate for the sake of debating, but to address concrete and specific changes that might (or might not) be desirable, with a goal of setting the parameters for future elections in advance. The topics to be addressed could include (but not be limited to):
(1) Voting system (approval voting versus other systems) (2) Candidate and voter qualifications and the endorsement system (3) Election publicity and communications
Although we have not decided this as a committee, I believe that most of this year's Election Committee members would be willing to set up pages on Meta and help to guide this discussion, if there is consensus here on the list or elsewhere that this should be done. It is unlikely that anything much would happen until after Wikimania, but I think that it might be a good idea to get any discussion going relatively soon while whatever issues arose during this year's election are fresh in people's mind. If we table the discussion for too long, then I suspect it will stay tabled until the 2008 elections are just around the corner and next year's committee will find itself in the same position that this year's did.
Everyone's thoughts will be appreciated.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org