I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should look into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of (lightweight) "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified this risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the candidate statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria) had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion of learnings can start independently.
Anders
What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the candidacy and to manage them better.
Kind regards Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" mail@anderswennersten.se ha scritto:
I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should look into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of (lightweight) "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified this risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the candidate statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria) had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion of learnings can start independently.
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of interest? Thanks, GerardM
On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the candidacy and to manage them better.
Kind regards Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" mail@anderswennersten.se ha scritto:
I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
a
year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
look
into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
that
he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board
work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
(lightweight)
"vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
this
risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
candidate
statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria) had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes
in
the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion of learnings can start independently.
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Any COI generates burocracy. After or before.
Doing it before helps to avoid empty seats.
In an election is the same community to check it. If there is an appointment, there is not a preliminary extensive check. A potential COI is revealed after the appointment. Il 09 Apr 2016 12:15, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hoi, Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of interest? Thanks, GerardM
On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the candidacy and to manage them better.
Kind regards Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" mail@anderswennersten.se
ha
scritto:
I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board
within
a
year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a
snap
byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
look
into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
that
he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board
work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description
of
requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
(lightweight)
"vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
this
risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should
for
future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by
each
candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the
requirement
from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and
priority
for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
candidate
statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board
criteria)
had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes
in
the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion of learnings can start independently.
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dealing with COI is more than just declaring it. It also needs to be managed. Denny's COI issues were apparently somewhat self-managed to a certain extent, but please pay mind to this part of what he wrote:
I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice, but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
It was apparently in this conversation that a plan to manage Denny's COI was laid out. Apparently after he joined the board. And apparently not something that he was at all happy with.
Denny also talked about catching lots of flack due to his ties to Google. Publishing a COI management plan would help allay those concerns. (Not put them totally away, but at least provide some comfort to those who are concerned that the board is aware of the COI and is managing it)
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Any COI generates burocracy. After or before.
Doing it before helps to avoid empty seats.
In an election is the same community to check it. If there is an appointment, there is not a preliminary extensive check. A potential COI is revealed after the appointment. Il 09 Apr 2016 12:15, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hoi, Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of interest? Thanks, GerardM
On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate
the
candidacy and to manage them better.
Kind regards Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" mail@anderswennersten.se
ha
scritto:
I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board
within
a
year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a
snap
byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
look
into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in
the
election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
that
he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board
work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not
necessary
the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description
of
requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
(lightweight)
"vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
this
risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should
for
future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by
each
candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the
requirement
from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and
priority
for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
candidate
statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board
criteria)
had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but
it
will probably still be some month before it is established. Any
changes
in
the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion of learnings can start independently.
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than conflict of interest:
I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
appropriate to
pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice, but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light that he was a board member.
I think one of the learning points (assuming I have understood correctly) is that someone who is great at coming up with ideas and making stuff happen is not necessarily a great fit for the Board. It can actually be very awkward having a great operational/project idea as a Board member as just talking about your cool idea creates tensions. Is your project getting special attention as you're a board member? Are staff spending time progressing things on it because they think it has special importance because you're on the Board (possibly taking away from what their manager thinks are their priorities?) If your cool idea doesn't quite fit with the ED's direction of travel are you undermining them?
That kind of problem shows up regardless of there is a COI or not.
As a result, board members are actually really restricted in what they can personally propose and progress.
There is a natural tendency in the community elections to choose people who have done admirable things but I think this is a case of (among other things) an amazing "do-er" and thinker being frustrated by the implications of being on a governance board. (Not the first and probably not the last time in our movement, I suspect)
Regards,
Chris
On 11 April 2016 at 13:29, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
appropriate to
pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
but
it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light that he was a board member.
I've found this frustrating myself, at times. For example, I've avoided commenting in my volunteer capacity on VisualEditor and Flow related-threads because of how it may be perceived to have staff commenting on such topics, in spite of the fact that I have never worked on VisualEditor or Flow in my time at the Wikimedia Foundation.
I don't know what the best course of action to resolve these issues is, but I am interested in such discussions.
Thanks, Dan
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than conflict of interest:
I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
appropriate to
pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice, but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light that he was a board member.
While I'm not sure exactly what Denny meant in his mail, I think Chris' comment is spot on -- every trustee, especially those used to weighing in on community discussions, feels somewhat limited in what they can say and how to say it when they join the board, whether that's proposing a new idea or weighing in on an existing one. (Then, of course, you also get criticized for not speaking up enough!) It can be an awkward balancing act that takes some time to learn, and can indeed be frustrating.
Partly I think it's simply inherently difficult. As a trustee your own interests and areas of volunteering are often not what's best for the WMF overall to focus on -- either because they are too narrow, or too resource intensive, or a host of other reasons -- not least because one contributor cannot possibly speak for a whole area of the movement, and as a movement we value consensus and broad input for every idea. But I also think we're not very good on the board at utilizing people's individual strengths and recognizing that the very reasons why someone is interesting as a trustee (because they are an expert contributor in some area, as all the trustees are) also means that they likely have biases and opinions about strategic directions, and could use those opinions productively to help the organization learn and grow.
As for what we can learn from this situation, I'm intrigued by this proposal:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Atsme atsme@outlook.com wrote:
Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings waiting to fill vacancies. It’s a win-win.
We could certainly vote in alternates; it would be as simple as taking the 4th place winner. Also, we do have a mechanism set up for observers at the board meetings, and have not taken advantage of it recently; 1 or 2 community observers could join. Another idea: what about field training of some sort for candidates or those considering candidacy? It's a big commitment that people make and that the movement makes to those people, and having a week or two immersion and preparation -- it could be done virtually -- wouldn't be the worst thing. Board boot camp, if you will.
Phoebe
I like the idea of a boot camp or orientation for board members, which could be applicable to both affiliate and WMF boards. I believe that the standing Elections Committee, once it is operational, has plans to work on this, along with cultivating a list of good candidates for affiliate and WMF boards.
Greg or Lane, are you able to comment on this?
It would also be nice to get an update on the formation of the standing Elections Committee.
Pine
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than conflict
of
interest:
I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
appropriate to
pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
but
it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light
that
he was a board member.
While I'm not sure exactly what Denny meant in his mail, I think Chris' comment is spot on -- every trustee, especially those used to weighing in on community discussions, feels somewhat limited in what they can say and how to say it when they join the board, whether that's proposing a new idea or weighing in on an existing one. (Then, of course, you also get criticized for not speaking up enough!) It can be an awkward balancing act that takes some time to learn, and can indeed be frustrating.
Partly I think it's simply inherently difficult. As a trustee your own interests and areas of volunteering are often not what's best for the WMF overall to focus on -- either because they are too narrow, or too resource intensive, or a host of other reasons -- not least because one contributor cannot possibly speak for a whole area of the movement, and as a movement we value consensus and broad input for every idea. But I also think we're not very good on the board at utilizing people's individual strengths and recognizing that the very reasons why someone is interesting as a trustee (because they are an expert contributor in some area, as all the trustees are) also means that they likely have biases and opinions about strategic directions, and could use those opinions productively to help the organization learn and grow.
As for what we can learn from this situation, I'm intrigued by this proposal:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Atsme atsme@outlook.com wrote:
Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings
waiting to fill vacancies. It’s a win-win.
We could certainly vote in alternates; it would be as simple as taking the 4th place winner. Also, we do have a mechanism set up for observers at the board meetings, and have not taken advantage of it recently; 1 or 2 community observers could join. Another idea: what about field training of some sort for candidates or those considering candidacy? It's a big commitment that people make and that the movement makes to those people, and having a week or two immersion and preparation -- it could be done virtually -- wouldn't be the worst thing. Board boot camp, if you will.
Phoebe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'm currently the one in charge of coordinating (on the staff side) the Standing Elections Committee (Greg resigned from the committee when he became a communications department contractor and I'm not sure why you pinged Lane, I assume because of the Affiliate Appointments process but that is not related to the board elections committee).
*As an update on the committee*: I'm hoping to get the standing committee fully up and running before Wikimania. It was delayed given the multitude of other issues recently (for example the resolution actually required us to have the ED taking part and the last time I had a fully breathing moment to start the process we didn't...) but once WikiCon is over we should be able to get that process up and running. We've already started polling the members of the last committee to see if they'd be willing to serve as starting members and will be having an internal meeting right after WikiCon to ensure we do everything right (parts of it can happen very quickly, parts of it will take some time simply because of volunteer schedules etc).
*Regarding your proposal:* Unfortunately I'm not sure that's within the committee's remit from the board https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Elections_Committee at this point and so I'm not sure it will be high on their initial list. That said I would be, at most, an advisor and not a member of either the Election Committee or the Board Governance Committee which oversees them so would wish to speak fully for what they would do in the end :). Also one of their duties is *"As needed, the Committee may assist with other duties as may be assigned by the Board or the Board Governance Committee." *so anything is possible :).
James Alexander Manager Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of a boot camp or orientation for board members, which could be applicable to both affiliate and WMF boards. I believe that the standing Elections Committee, once it is operational, has plans to work on this, along with cultivating a list of good candidates for affiliate and WMF boards.
Greg or Lane, are you able to comment on this?
It would also be nice to get an update on the formation of the standing Elections Committee.
Pine
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
If I read Denny's email correctly, this section is broader than
conflict
of
interest:
I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
appropriate to
pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
but
it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
E.g. any comment Denny made on Phabricator now being read in the light
that
he was a board member.
While I'm not sure exactly what Denny meant in his mail, I think Chris' comment is spot on -- every trustee, especially those used to weighing in on community discussions, feels somewhat limited in what they can say and how to say it when they join the board, whether that's proposing a new idea or weighing in on an existing one. (Then, of course, you also get criticized for not speaking up enough!) It can be an awkward balancing act that takes some time to learn, and can indeed be frustrating.
Partly I think it's simply inherently difficult. As a trustee your own interests and areas of volunteering are often not what's best for the WMF overall to focus on -- either because they are too narrow, or too resource intensive, or a host of other reasons -- not least because one contributor cannot possibly speak for a whole area of the movement, and as a movement we value consensus and broad input for every idea. But I also think we're not very good on the board at utilizing people's individual strengths and recognizing that the very reasons why someone is interesting as a trustee (because they are an expert contributor in some area, as all the trustees are) also means that they likely have biases and opinions about strategic directions, and could use those opinions productively to help the organization learn and grow.
As for what we can learn from this situation, I'm intrigued by this proposal:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Atsme atsme@outlook.com wrote:
Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings
waiting to fill vacancies. It’s a win-win.
We could certainly vote in alternates; it would be as simple as taking the 4th place winner. Also, we do have a mechanism set up for observers at the board meetings, and have not taken advantage of it recently; 1 or 2 community observers could join. Another idea: what about field training of some sort for candidates or those considering candidacy? It's a big commitment that people make and that the movement makes to those people, and having a week or two immersion and preparation -- it could be done virtually -- wouldn't be the worst thing. Board boot camp, if you will.
Phoebe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.
The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee, of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default* position should be that this information is public unless there are jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of apparent shame and drama.
Fae
On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to resign the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should look into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of (lightweight) "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified this risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the candidate statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria) had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion of learnings can start independently.
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Did you miss a “not” in there?
Fae said: “Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”
Suggested edit: “…leaving your seat should NOT be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.
The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee, of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default* position should be that this information is public unless there are jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of apparent shame and drama.
Fae
On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
resign
the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
a
year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
look
into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
ordinary
work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength,
"Wikidata",
is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re
this
also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence
finds
he has limited "value" for the board work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
the
ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
(lightweight)
"vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
this
risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
candidate
statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria) had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
will
probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion
of
learnings can start independently.
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes. The 'not' was implied. ;-)
Per future President Clinton, those were just my words. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-misspoke-over-claim...
If only there was a way of writing text online that could be edited after pressing the save button, someone should invent that.
Fae
On 9 April 2016 at 11:55, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Did you miss a “not” in there?
Fae said: “Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”
Suggested edit: “…leaving your seat should NOT be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.”
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
It's quite normal for Trustees to step down due to changing interests or after a review of interests. It would be great if the WMF board could move over to a culture where there was far less drama and chest beating about managing and declaring interests. Trustees are an unpaid volunteer position, leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.
The practice in the UK chapter established back when I was a trustee, of making comprehensive declarations of interest and loyalty is something that the WMF could easily follow at zero cost. The *default* position should be that this information is public unless there are jolly good reasons to make it private, and those exceptions should be carefully reviewed by the Chairperson who has the final say on whether it ought to be made public. Further, every board meeting needs a standing agenda including declarations for the coming agenda. For example, Jimmy's interest as the owner of Wikia has in the last decade never resulted in a simple declaration of interest in the public minutes, nor has he declined to vote on a resolution because of that interest. Declarations should be run of the mill, not a matter of apparent shame and drama.
Fae
On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
resign
the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
a
year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
look
into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
ordinary
work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major strength,
"Wikidata",
is hard to make use of in the Board as any influencing of decision re
this
also puts him in a COI situation, and that he outside this competence
finds
he has limited "value" for the board work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
the
ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
(lightweight)
"vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
this
risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
candidate
statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria) had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
will
probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a discussion
of
learnings can start independently.
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.
Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board would be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community election to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are to be elected by the Board if resignation occurs. As the community election today only gives three candidates for the Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner up, to be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three. This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election community in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by the Board. To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a bit far, time since last election is further away, and number five in the election has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board in their selection after a community election were to reject two candidates I would consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the list .
But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how could fill the empty seat after Danny
Anders
I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process.
Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4 community-elected seats every year with 2 seats elected each year for 2 year terms? I think that a standing Elections Committee might be able to facilitate this kind of cycle.
Also worth considering: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Think...
Pine
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.
Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board would
be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community election to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are to be elected by the Board if resignation occurs. As the community election today only gives three candidates for the Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner up, to be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three. This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election community in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by the Board. To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a bit far, time since last election is further away, and number five in the election has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board in their selection after a community election were to reject two candidates I would consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the list .
But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how could fill the empty seat after Danny
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I forgot to add that one of the benefits of having elections scheduled every year is that if a community-elected member departs from the board in the first year of their term, then it's simple to have another seat elected in the next cycle to fill the remainder of that term..
Pine
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process.
Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4 community-elected seats every year with 2 seats elected each year for 2 year terms? I think that a standing Elections Committee might be able to facilitate this kind of cycle.
Also worth considering: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Think...
Pine
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.
Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board would
be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community election to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are to be elected by the Board if resignation occurs. As the community election today only gives three candidates for the Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner up, to be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three. This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election community in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by the Board. To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a bit far, time since last election is further away, and number five in the election has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board in their selection after a community election were to reject two candidates I would consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the list .
But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how could fill the empty seat after Danny
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Two community elected members every 1.5 years would be a good. Three could than be elected if someone steps down.
James
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I forgot to add that one of the benefits of having elections scheduled every year is that if a community-elected member departs from the board in the first year of their term, then it's simple to have another seat elected in the next cycle to fill the remainder of that term..
Pine
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process.
Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4 community-elected seats every year with 2 seats elected each year for 2 year terms? I think that a standing Elections Committee might be able to facilitate this kind of cycle.
Also worth considering:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Think...
Pine
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.
Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board
would
be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community
election
to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are
to
be elected by the Board if resignation occurs. As the community election today only gives three candidates for the Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner
up, to
be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three. This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election
community
in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by the Board. To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a
bit
far, time since last election is further away, and number five in the election has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board
in
their selection after a community election were to reject two
candidates I
would consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the
list .
But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how could fill the empty seat after Danny
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Establish alternates who are non-voting members but are in the wings waiting to fill vacancies. It’s a win-win.
Betty (Atsme)
On Apr 10, 2016, at 4:02 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Two community elected members every 1.5 years would be a good. Three could than be elected if someone steps down.
James
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I forgot to add that one of the benefits of having elections scheduled every year is that if a community-elected member departs from the board in the first year of their term, then it's simple to have another seat elected in the next cycle to fill the remainder of that term..
Pine
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad we're thinking about how to improve Board elections, including about possible screening for COI issues early in the election process.
Thinking also about Board composition, what if we changed Jimmy's seat to another community-elected seat, and ran elections for what would be 4 community-elected seats every year with 2 seats elected each year for 2 year terms? I think that a standing Elections Committee might be able to facilitate this kind of cycle.
Also worth considering:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Think...
Pine
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
Den 2016-04-09 kl. 12:51, skrev Fæ:
leaving your seat should be made to appear like a royal abdication or the result of failure.
Yes, another option to secure a continuity of members in the board
would
be to accept resignations will occur and then have the community
election
to end formally in a number of "reserves". and that these reserves are
to
be elected by the Board if resignation occurs. As the community election today only gives three candidates for the Board to elect (or reject), the number four must be seen as a runner
up, to
be selected by the Board if they do not approve any of the first three. This reasoning was also reflected in the stating by the election
community
in early January and the election of Maria as a replacement for James by the Board. To extend the same reasoning this time is stretching it a
bit
far, time since last election is further away, and number five in the election has at least by me never been seen as a runnerup. If the Board
in
their selection after a community election were to reject two
candidates I
would consider a reelection more relevant then to go further down the
list .
But a bylection is quite costly to set up and run centrally and also for the whole community. So perhaps we should be broadminded in thinking how could fill the empty seat after Danny
Anders
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
this is the second community selected
ITYM "community suggested". The selection is done by the board.
that has left the Board within a year after being appointed, and before any future election
There are no elections.
The election does not elect members of the Board, and I have not written that
The election does, though, elect candidates to be considered by the Board for appointment to the Board
The three members in the Board are not community elected (and I have never written that), but they are selected from the community and I call them being community selected (but perhaps it is bad English)
Anders
Den 2016-04-11 kl. 13:13, skrev Andy Mabbett:
On 9 April 2016 at 07:26, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
this is the second community selected
ITYM "community suggested". The selection is done by the board.
that has left the Board within a year after being appointed, and before any future election
There are no elections.
On 11 April 2016 at 14:03, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
The election does not elect members of the Board, and I have not written that
Firstly, please don't top-post.
The election does, though, elect candidates to be considered by the Board for appointment to the Board
That's not an election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election
An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office
The three members in the Board are not community elected (and I have never written that), but they are selected from the community and I call them being community selected (but perhaps it is bad English)
"community selected" means "selected *by* the community ", not "from" it.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org