On 9/29/2010 8:47 PM, Anthony wrote: Maybe it's not the most artful way of characterizing things (certainly it would be wrong to assume that the order in which individuals are mentioned corresponds to their priority or influence over the agenda), but I didn't find it so bizarre that I would need to call it out for correction. Anyway, Erik did mention that he's not on the board nor involved in its meetings, and accurately directed people to the board (not Sue) as the proper channel for seeking the board's attention. Given his distance from the process (and how different the organization was when he previously served on the board), I'm not sure why you would expect him to provide authoritative pronouncements on such details. Moreover, as a member of the staff he reports to Sue, and experiences the work of the board through Sue, so it's natural for his perspective on the work of the board to be oriented that way. The board chair ultimately sets the agenda for board meetings. In doing so, the chair follows the course the board has set for itself previously and relies on discussion with the vice chair and the executive director, along with input from the remaining board members. (This is how it worked when I was chair, and I expect current practice will not have changed too dramatically.) To the extent that issues the board needs to consider come to its attention through the staff or via day-to-day operations, obviously Sue would be the primary channel for that to happen, and such matters naturally are a significant piece of board business. That doesn't mean that Sue dictates the board's agenda, however. The board ultimately decides for itself what it needs to focus on, whether that's the recently completed strategic planning process or the current effort to sort out existing roles in the Wikimedia movement. It can also decline to pursue matters Sue has asked it to consider, though I must say that in my experience Sue was very good at maintaining an appropriate role relative to the board, and the idea of her diverting the board's agenda from where the board wanted to go is purely an imaginary problem. --Michael Snow

Just to clarify the process. After the previous board meeting I am collecting topics for the next board meeting. This includes suggestions put directly to me (non until now), or on the board mailing-list (mostly) or on page of the board wiki for the preparation of the next meeting. One month prior of the meeting I called via board mailing list for topics we should handle on the next meeting. I will also ask every board member or Sue, who would present a topic on the meeting, how much time they think they need and who would also attend the meeting to support their case. Two weeks prior of the meeting I will settle down a semistable agenda and announce it on the mailing list and on the board wiki. One week prior (that is, maybe tomorrow or latest Saturnday) of the meeting I will write a mail on this list and inform the community about our next meeting and its topics. By the way, this is first practised by Michael and I am very glad to follow his example. To the board the process of creating the agenda is transparent. Sue takes part on the board meeting, except the executive session. And naturally she would also make her suggestions if she has need in it. Greetings Ting Am 30.09.2010 05:47, wrote Anthony: -- Ting Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/