The next meeting of the Board of Trustees is October 3-5 in San Francisco. Some of the matters on our agenda include: *the upcoming online fundraiser (tentatively to begin end of October or beginning of November) *progress on the audit for fiscal year 2007-08 *the path toward "sub-national" chapter organizations *along with that, some additional housekeeping related to chapter business *Wikimedia's role with respect to open standards, especially for educational content *the role of the advisory board *organizational policies
A few issues are things we basically should be wrapping up, like the revised privacy policy, and should come out of the meeting as finished work. Some things we're checking in on but results will probably not follow quite immediately. For example, the audit committee meets earlier in the week so the board will have a little more information when it meets, but I don't think we'll be done to the point of approving audited financial statements. We'll handle that by email and wiki in the weeks following.
And finally, some of these topics are big-picture issues we need to discuss, but aren't always ripe for outcomes just yet. It may be starting or reopening a conversation. We touched on the advisory board back in April, but ended up with more work to do on restructuring the board itself, so we're picking back up on that subject. And as I indicated earlier, there are many issues we can explore around file formats and open standards. I particularly want to stimulate some community discussion in that area to help the board, so I'll address it separately in a little bit. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any input you would like the board to consider within the framework of its agenda for this meeting.
--Michael Snow
the path toward "sub-national" chapter organizations
I am especially interested in the outcome of this point, as I could imagine that especially in larger countries (the US springs to mind), as well as countries with large metropolitan regions (most European countries) that may have an interest in setting up a "sub-national" chapter instead of inofficial / casual meetups.
-Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
Yes, this is interesting to me as well, especially since the US has several subnational chapters already in existence, in various levels of development and recognition.
-Dan On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Ian A. Holton wrote:
the path toward "sub-national" chapter organizations
I am especially interested in the outcome of this point, as I could imagine that especially in larger countries (the US springs to mind), as well as countries with large metropolitan regions (most European countries) that may have an interest in setting up a "sub-national" chapter instead of inofficial / casual meetups.
-Ian [[User:Poeloq]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As an organizer of the as-yet-informal Wikimedia New York City group, I would like to know if the Board has any questions it would like answered by on this subject before their meeting.
Thanks, Pharos
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this is interesting to me as well, especially since the US has several subnational chapters already in existence, in various levels of development and recognition.
-Dan On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Ian A. Holton wrote:
the path toward "sub-national" chapter organizations
I am especially interested in the outcome of this point, as I could imagine that especially in larger countries (the US springs to mind), as well as countries with large metropolitan regions (most European countries) that may have an interest in setting up a "sub-national" chapter instead of inofficial / casual meetups.
-Ian [[User:Poeloq]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ian A. Holton wrote:
the path toward "sub-national" chapter organizations
I am especially interested in the outcome of this point, as I could imagine that especially in larger countries (the US springs to mind), as well as countries with large metropolitan regions (most European countries) that may have an interest in setting up a "sub-national" chapter instead of inofficial / casual meetups.
Well, a meetup is still a good thing that can be useful itself, not just as a stepping stone to chapter activity. "In addition to", perhaps, rather than "instead of". I wouldn't want to discourage people getting together informally too. But that's nitpicking, I understand your larger point.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
The next meeting of the Board of Trustees is October 3-5 in San Francisco. Some of the matters on our agenda include: *the upcoming online fundraiser (tentatively to begin end of October or beginning of November) *progress on the audit for fiscal year 2007-08 *the path toward "sub-national" chapter organizations *along with that, some additional housekeeping related to chapter business *Wikimedia's role with respect to open standards, especially for educational content *the role of the advisory board *organizational policies
A few issues are things we basically should be wrapping up, like the revised privacy policy, and should come out of the meeting as finished work. Some things we're checking in on but results will probably not follow quite immediately. For example, the audit committee meets earlier in the week so the board will have a little more information when it meets, but I don't think we'll be done to the point of approving audited financial statements. We'll handle that by email and wiki in the weeks following.
And finally, some of these topics are big-picture issues we need to discuss, but aren't always ripe for outcomes just yet. It may be starting or reopening a conversation. We touched on the advisory board back in April, but ended up with more work to do on restructuring the board itself, so we're picking back up on that subject. And as I indicated earlier, there are many issues we can explore around file formats and open standards. I particularly want to stimulate some community discussion in that area to help the board, so I'll address it separately in a little bit. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any input you would like the board to consider within the framework of its agenda for this meeting.
--Michael Snow
Hello,
Thank you for sharing with us the Foundation agenda.
I'd like to make one comment and ask four questions.
Chapters (subnational organizations) I am aware that it is a hot topic, and that it should somehow at some point, move forward. However, don't you think it would have made sense to wait until the two chapter seats and Frieda's seat have been replaced before holding such a discussion and perhaps making such decisions ? The current board is made of members, none of which has ever been a member of a chapter. That does not strike me as the most informed company to make a decision engaging the international part of our organization structure.
Frieda I can not help notice that the replacement of Frieda as board member is not planned in the board agenda. I do not remember having heard how Frieda will be replaced. Either the board has no idea and in this case, would not it be nice to put that topic on the agenda ? Or the board actually plan to decide on a replacement and if not at that meeting, when does the board plan to make that decision ? If you actually plan to discuss this point, I think the community, who originally elected Frieda, would love to know.
Additional housekeeping related to chapter business This sentence strikes me as very mysterious. What does that mean ? If we talk about "business" in its strict definition, I'd like to point out that in the past 9 months the business-legal professional team has been set up, most of the business-wmf relationships have not been officialized (eg, Wikimedia France is still waiting for an authorization to print tee-shirts). In my view, in an internet environnement which is changing very fast, 9 months seems like eternity. How does the board feel about that ? What does the board intend to do about that ? Does the quality of relationships the Foundation has with its partners matter to you ? Do you consider the chapters are partners at all ? If that's the point you are actually planning to discuss, I am sure chapters would be very pleased that you contact them at some point so that they can share with you their thoughts.
Staff Related topic. Part of the job of the board is to set into place a management (the ED), and then to regularly evaluate the job of the management. Of course, such an evaluation can only be honestly done when the management is given a collection of measurable goals to reach. When I quit the board, Sue had been there for a year. She was originally hired for six (6) months, which means that she need now an evaluation of the job done in the past year, and much more seriously need new goals, on which the board will base its evaluation of HER job next year. I know that Jan-Bart was working on such a document, but even so, I would imagine that the final result would need to be discussed and approved by the entire board. I doubt this would happen only by email. Given that Sue has been in need of such feedback and contractual agreement for now roughly 9 months, why is this not on the agenda ? If this topic is actually on the agenda, but was not specifically listed her, I think it is worth mentionning it publicly.
Board One of the values of the organization is transparency. I'd like to point out that resolutions and board meeting minutes have not been published since June. That is... since I stopped doing it :-) Still, a meeting was held in july and decisions made. Nothing has been published. I also remember various discussions end of spring to identify solutions to this issue (such as asking a staff member to be in charge of such publications). It seems an important point to me. Beyond the expectations from the community to see public minutes, I'd like to point out that the audit requires providing minutes. Either minutes have been written and the board should discuss how they could be published within a reasonable time frame. Or minutes have not been written and the board should discuss how to make sure that decisions taken by board will be recorded in the future.
Again, I appreciate you sharing the agenda with us and raising the discussion about file format. I just thought that I would share in turn with you my own expectations and questions.
Thanks
Ant
Florence Devouard wrote:
I'd like to make one comment and ask four questions.
Chapters (subnational organizations) I am aware that it is a hot topic, and that it should somehow at some point, move forward. However, don't you think it would have made sense to wait until the two chapter seats and Frieda's seat have been replaced before holding such a discussion and perhaps making such decisions ? The current board is made of members, none of which has ever been a member of a chapter. That does not strike me as the most informed company to make a decision engaging the international part of our organization structure.
I thought Ting was a member of the German chapter, I don't know offhand if Jan-Bart is a member of the Dutch chapter. But I don't think we're ignorant of things at a chapter level. Anyway, the subnational chapter organizations are on the agenda because we need to start discussing it, not because we're trying for a final proposal to come out of this meeting. Any progress will certainly be shared with the existing chapters for feedback, and they're welcome to offer input in advance as well. I would add that part of the point here is for chapters to reach people who have been excluded thus far by the existing pattern of chapter organization, which affects at least a couple board members personally, and that "outside" perspective is just as important to this question as the "inside" one.
Also, it's a bit difficult to untangle this issue from the process of having chapters select board members. Since I honestly don't know how long it will take for the chapters to develop and use their process, I think the better course is to start the conversation now rather than wait indefinitely. The existing chapters are welcome to select their two seats at any time once they've identified the process, of course. If they feel this is a crucial question on which they should have more direct input, I trust that will motivate them to the appropriate urgency in filling those seats.
Frieda I can not help notice that the replacement of Frieda as board member is not planned in the board agenda. I do not remember having heard how Frieda will be replaced. Either the board has no idea and in this case, would not it be nice to put that topic on the agenda ? Or the board actually plan to decide on a replacement and if not at that meeting, when does the board plan to make that decision ?
As I indicated in announcing her resignation, we haven't decided whether or how to fill the vacancy, but the issue would be considered at the October board meeting. My apologies for not specifying it again this time around. The agenda actually has a more general topic of "board composition and development" that relates to not only this, but the chapters selection process and the progress of the nominating committee.
Additional housekeeping related to chapter business This sentence strikes me as very mysterious. What does that mean ?
Housekeeping is, as the term suggests, relatively routine items - of which we've handled many such decisions at the recommendation of the chapters committee before this meeting, and will no doubt continue to do after this meeting. Nothing to be suspicious about and not trying to be mysterious, only brief. (My comments about "routine" and such are not meant to belittle the work of actual housekeepers, and I've known and occasionally lived with people where it appears they must find it a very mysterious topic indeed.)
Staff Related topic. Part of the job of the board is to set into place a management (the ED), and then to regularly evaluate the job of the management. Of course, such an evaluation can only be honestly done when the management is given a collection of measurable goals to reach. When I quit the board, Sue had been there for a year. She was originally hired for six (6) months, which means that she need now an evaluation of the job done in the past year, and much more seriously need new goals, on which the board will base its evaluation of HER job next year. I know that Jan-Bart was working on such a document, but even so, I would imagine that the final result would need to be discussed and approved by the entire board. I doubt this would happen only by email. Given that Sue has been in need of such feedback and contractual agreement for now roughly 9 months, why is this not on the agenda ?
The board committee responsible for this issue is meeting with Sue on Monday after the conclusion of the regular board meeting. That's how this was supposed to have been dealt with in April, but the meeting didn't take place then. Notwithstanding that lapse, I think we've made progress here and are better prepared to take care of it now. You're probably right that this would not work completely by email, but Stu is fairly easily available if someone needs to represent the board and meet with Sue personally. The final result will of course be subject to approval by the entire board.
Board One of the values of the organization is transparency. I'd like to point out that resolutions and board meeting minutes have not been published since June. That is... since I stopped doing it :-) Still, a meeting was held in july and decisions made. Nothing has been published. I also remember various discussions end of spring to identify solutions to this issue (such as asking a staff member to be in charge of such publications). It seems an important point to me. Beyond the expectations from the community to see public minutes, I'd like to point out that the audit requires providing minutes. Either minutes have been written and the board should discuss how they could be published within a reasonable time frame. Or minutes have not been written and the board should discuss how to make sure that decisions taken by board will be recorded in the future.
Purely from an audit perspective, I doubt that having the previous meeting's minutes finalized and approved at the next meeting would present much of a concern. But if the auditors would like to tell us differently, then I imagine they will. Anyway, we have further discussed having a staff member assist in taking notes and producing minutes, also to allow board members to concentrate more on participating during the meeting. We'll see if that produces better results.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
I thought Ting was a member of the German chapter, I don't know offhand if Jan-Bart is a member of the Dutch chapter.
Oh, just for your information. I am not a member of the German chapter (this should change in the near future). I try to keep myself constantly informed about the developments in the German, Taiwanese and Hongkong Chapters whilest not take part in the discussions and affairs of the chapters at the same time.
Ting.
Florence Devouard wrote:
Staff Related topic. Part of the job of the board is to set into place a management (the ED), and then to regularly evaluate the job of the management. Of course, such an evaluation can only be honestly done when the management is given a collection of measurable goals to reach. When I quit the board, Sue had been there for a year.
Since no-one other than me has stood up to clarify the above, purely in the interests of leaving nobody on this list with an incorrect impression of the way things went about the board of trustees (even if they joined this list very lately); let us all be very clear that Florence Devouard never resigned from the board (despite her very confusing use of the word "quit" above).
What Florence Devouard did do was to refrain from contesting the election, and putting herself forward for evaluation by the community as to whether she deserved to serve on the board another term. While it is sad that *her* performance was not judged by the community in this manner, we can merely speculate what its outcome would have been.
But let us be very clear. Florence did not quit. She declined the opportunity to be evaluated for her job performance by the community. For whatever reason.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
But let us be very clear. Florence did not quit. She declined the opportunity to be evaluated for her job performance by the community. For whatever reason.
This seems to be an awfully hostile and unnecessary "clarification" here. When a person who holds an elected position chooses not to run for reelection, I see no reason not to say that that person "quit" the position. Basically, it's word play here, and it's being twisted to cast Florence in a negative light that I don't think is deserved.
--Andrew Whitworth
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Staff Related topic. Part of the job of the board is to set into place a management (the ED), and then to regularly evaluate the job of the management. Of course, such an evaluation can only be honestly done when the management is given a collection of measurable goals to reach. When I quit the board, Sue had been there for a year.
Since no-one other than me has stood up to clarify the above, purely in the interests of leaving nobody on this list with an incorrect impression of the way things went about the board of trustees (even if they joined this list very lately); let us all be very clear that Florence Devouard never resigned from the board (despite her very confusing use of the word "quit" above).
What Florence Devouard did do was to refrain from contesting the election, and putting herself forward for evaluation by the community as to whether she deserved to serve on the board another term. While it is sad that *her* performance was not judged by the community in this manner, we can merely speculate what its outcome would have been.
But let us be very clear. Florence did not quit. She declined the opportunity to be evaluated for her job performance by the community. For whatever reason.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Are you upset because I did not give you the chance to vote for me ? ;-)
Indeed, my performance was not up for evaluation. Would you have preferred that I run for election, win perhaps, and then resign 1 month later ?
I would actually feel much happier knowing that *many* people, hundreds or thousands, publicly showed their appreciation for my job so I could leave with this warmth feeling. I have at least some emails of thank yous, some presents I got at Wikimania, and a little black notebook with nice comments that made me cry. That's no public recognition but that's precious to me.
I already explained the reasons for not running. There are actually many reasons. One of the most important (but certainly not the only one) being that I am 40 years old and a mother of three kids below 12. I was a mother at home for several years, which was a fabulous opportunity to me. I could so happily dedicate these years to the projects and our mission. I am so happy I had this opportunity ! Now, if you do a quick scan of the people dedicating a LOT of time to our projects, you'll find, not so surprinsingly, that very few of them are 40 years old moms of 3 with no job. Jussi, you are neither a woman, nor a father. I do not think you can understand, sorry. But one has to move on.
That's certainly a different story than the evaluation of Sue, who is actually HIRED to do a job, PAID to do it, from money given by donors for the job done by Wikipedians.
Don't you think ?
Taking the opportunity :-)
If you feel my job was good and would like to help me move forward irl, please note that I am now working as an independant consultant in collaborative media.
My new website address: http://anthere.org (unfortunately, still very new and work-in-progress website, with limited english translation).
I'll be happy to answer any query.
And of course, if you just feel like saying "thanks", you can drop me a word anytime.
Ant
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org