On 2016-02-23 14:30, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: Hi Amir, in my personal opinion, the current composition of the Board (elected vs nominated by affiliates vs appointed seats) is in principle fine. It can be fine-tuned by moving may be one seat here and there, but this is a big deal and it is not clear for me how it is needed. A big question which was there from the very beginning is how to ensure the diversity. This is related to the composition of the board. We know if we make all seats directly elected we do not necessarily have the desired diversity and needed skills. If we make all of them appointed we can in principle have diversity and skills (though recent events shown this can have some problematic side issues) but then the community has no voice. I do not know how this can be currently solved. Or, to be precise, how one can solve it without compromising on bigger issues. Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2016-02-23 14:54, Thyge wrote: I do not think it could solve the diversity issue. To appoint the number of individuals with a set of skills and needed diversity, one needs candidates which will have needed skills and desired diversity to start with. Our experience as a movement (and also of people in other organizations in different contexts) that these people do not always queue at the doors of the WMF office to wait for being elected. They need to be scouted, negotiated with, and convinced to be willing to sit at the board. This is what currently various companies are paid to do, and this seems to be a reasonable arrangement to me. As far as the candidates are there, I do not see much of a difference whether the community, a selected group (like house of representatives), or the Board votes for them. And as soon as there is no difference there is also no need to make the structure more complicated. I thus conclude that this House of representatives is not needed for the Board elections. (It might be needed for other things, which are outside the scope of this discussion). Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Lane Rasberry, I'm aware of the ongoing election - but in all respect, that has nothing to do with a house of representavtives as I envision it, i.e. being "above" the board. The present structure allows the existing board to decline access to the persons being elected. Regards, Thyge 2016-02-23 16:05 GMT+01:00 Lane Rasberry &lt;lane(a)bluerasberry.com&gt;om>: now could during 24! desired of is representatives), is that this _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

(1) The most compelling arguments in favour of having appointees as voting board members (as opposed to having them as advisory board members),

(2) If you are comfortable doing so, the most important risks or downsides attached to the present arrangement?

I am glad to hear you are working on a proposal to increase the number of community/chapter seats on the board (though I personally tend to think that at 2 vs. 3, the chapters are already slightly over-represented, compared to the general community).

I like the idea of reserved seats for the global south. I would prefer to still have some appointed members for expertise, but that number should be diminished to give the community seats a majority. Somewhat controversial: I'd prefer to scrap the affiliate - selected seats. Chapters vary so much in organization and effectiveness that having seats for them isn't ideal to me. And, of course, let's remove Jimbo's seat. He contributes little to the board or movement these days except for the occasional response on his talk page, accepting awards on our behalf, and making ridiculous public comments which are listened to due to his status. I actually have nothing against the guy personally, but I see no need for this relic of a seat to continue. Salam, I sincerely appreciated any effort to craft a reform for the Board of Trustees membership. Thank you, Dariusz and Todd. Also, apologize for (possibly) flawed English, since it isn't my first language :) As a volunteer from the so-called Global South community, I'm much more concerned about the diversity issue in the Board. The issue here is that geographical and linguistic groups that are significant in the current state of our community should be proportionally represented. We must ensure that their voice will be heard on deciding important issues that might also affect them, in one way or another. Our current Board consist of no Asian or African, a very disturbing reality especially if we consider the immense potential and rapidly growing community in these two region. Allow me to propose the Board composition I felt the most suitable to accommodate this issue. This Board will be comprised of fifteen members, all with same voting power: - One Founder's Seat, reserved for Jimbo. While I believe that some might found this as a strangely contrast position for any reform needed by the Board, I think that we still need him in the Board as the voice of moderation and what makes us completely unique to other Internet institution. - Six regional seats, popularly elected by the regional communities. The proposed "regional communities" would be North America, South and Central America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Asia Pacific and Oceania. - Five at-large seats, or what we call today as community seats. Like the regional one, it will be popularly elected --- but by the whole community. - Three affiliate seats, elected by the affiliate and thematic organizations. Yes, there might be some flaw in this proposal. The biggest concern will be how to define and categorize a project into a specific "regional community". Maybe we could categorize the editors based on where do they edit (English Wikipedia editors will be voting for European seat) or where do they reside (which also possibly will raise question about privacy etc). Some might also question about why there is no more appointed seats. While I do agree with those who are saying that we need professional experts to sit in the Board, I believe that their power and influence should be nowhere more than the community to avoid another Arnnon-like controversy. So I would like to see them as members of the Advisory Board (as discussed in another thread before), possibly with increased function. I'd be very grateful to know your thoughts. Best, Ramzy _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

While my first impression of this proposed plan is fairly positive, I do have one major concern. dniu 24.02.2016, o godz. 11:47: community. My concern with the "at-large" seats is that if we’ve looked at the history of community Board elections, the electorate is overwhelmingly from the developed world. The candidates are also overwhelmingly from the developed world. We’ve already seen this in the current election, where despite the presence of six fine developing world candidates, myself included, the electorate settled on three white men (no offense to Dariusz, Denny and James). Under this proposed plan, Europe and North America will get one seat each. Let’s hypothesize that all the elected "at-large" seats went to developed world candidates. And then the affiliate seats have also traditionally gone to developed countries as well. Then we have Jimmy’s seat. Under this plan, we run the risk of having eleven of the fifteen seats dominated by developed countries. So does this mean that the remaining four seats should simply be tokens for developing countries, but to which we have no leverage because we can easily be outvoted by the other members of the Board? Last year, I had spoken out against quotas for developing countries, since it effectively puts our representation at the mercy of the Board. I am still figuring out what would be the best way to approach this issue, especially since voting for community Board seats is by language, not by country, but I’m looking at a mixture of temporary quotas (and I stress "temporary"), developing stronger mechanisms for getting developing country Wikipedians involved in movement governance (through affiliates, stronger consultation mechanisms when discussing movement-wide issues, etc.), and weighted voting in favor of certain geographies if this is technologically possible. Josh JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines jamesjoshualim(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com> | +63 (977) 831-7582 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://about.me/josh.lim <http://about.me/josh.lim> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

"Nor is a developed world-dominated." Sorry, my bad. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic (as he knows). I think that a body that is able to speak for the movement as a whole would be extremely beneficial in order to relieve the current Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation from that role. It simply cannot - and indeed, legally must not - fulfill this role. To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will be true now matter how much you reorganize it: - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the Foundation. They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so. - the Board members have fiduciary responsibilities. No, we cannot just talk about what we are doing. As said, the loyalty of a Board member is towards the organization, not the movement. - the Board members that are elected by the communities or through chapters represent the voice of the communities or the chapters. That's not the case. All Board members are equal, and have the same duties and rights. Our loyalty is towards the organization, not towards the constituency that voted for us. These things are not like this because the Wikimedia Foundation has decided in a diabolic plan for world domination to write the rules in such a way. These things are so because US laws - either federal or state laws, I am not a lawyer and so I might be babbling nonsense here anyway, but this is my understanding - requires a Board of Trustees to have these legal obligations. This is nothing invented by the WMF in its early days, but rather the standard framework for US non-profits. Now, sure, you may say that this doesn't really matter, the Foundation and the Movement should always be aligned. And where this is usually the case, in those few cases where it is not it will lead to a massive burn. Once you are on the Board, you do not represent the Communities, the Chapters, your favourite Wikimedia project, you are not the representative and defender of Wikispecies or the avatar of Wiktionary - no, you are a Trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and your legal obligations and duties are defined by the Bylaws and the applicable state and federal laws. So, whoever argues that the Board of Trustees is to be the representative of the communities has still to explain to me how to avoid this conundrum. Simply increasing the number of community elected seats won't change anything in a sustaining way. This is why I very much sympathize with the introduction of a new body that indeed represents the communities, and whose loyalty is undivided to the Movement as a whole. I currently do not see any body that in the Wikimedia movement that would have the moral authority to discuss e.g. whether Wikiversity should be set up as a project independent of the Wikimedia movement, whether Wikisource would deserve much more resources, whether Stewards have sufficient authority, whether the German Wikimedia chapter has to submit itself to the FDC proposal, whether a restart of the Croatian Wikipedia is warranted, etc. I am quite sure that none of these questions are appropriate for the Board of Trustees, but I would love to hear the opinion of others on this. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Denny Vrandecic &lt;dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org wrote: > Thank you for the diverse input. A few points to Razmy's proposal. > I have trouble with suggestions that state "we can ensure diversity by > creating regional seats". First, why these regions? What does each region > seat represent? Potential readers? Actual readers? Human population at > large? Why not number of active editors? Without deciding that we do not > know whether the regions you suggest make any sense. > Second, why regions at all? How do regions ensure that we have a diversity > in age? Sex? Gender? Wealth? Religion? Cultural background? Educational > background? Diversity has not only the aspect of being from a specific > region, there is so much more to that. > Also, the increase in number of Trustees makes the Board more expensive > and more ineffective. I would be rather unhappy with such an increase. It > is hard enough to get anything done at the current size. I would appreciate > any proposal that reduces the number of Trustees, not increases it. > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Ramzy Muliawan < ramzymuliawan14(a)gmail.com > > wrote: >> >> > This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated >> > Board, nor is a developing world-dominated. >> >> >> "Nor is a developed world-dominated." >> >> Sorry, my bad. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic &lt;dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org wrote: > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will > be true now matter how much you reorganize it: > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not > to the movement. > ​Hi Denny, Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view. They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors an idea of what's expected of them. It includes: ​ ​"... ​ I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization, speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization accountable. ​" [1] Sarah [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract ​ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional representative body that had the community's trust and respect, that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and the WMF. Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever from the WMF - good and bad. Anthony Cole On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV &lt;sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an absurdity. The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the builders of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops. Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a membership organisation de novo, except for two things. 1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap to new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being provided by the WMF. 2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts. Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully we could publicly shame them into handing it over. George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as I can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual editor. When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF, that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon valley entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should be the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care. But this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right. Anthony Cole On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ​I believe that public shaming as a tool went out of vogue in most civil societies quite a bit ago. I think it should be out of vogue on this list as well.​ -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I editor. valley be But There are several ways to look at this. One includes the view that the Foundation and Board exist to protect and encourage the Movement, not just the loudest editor communities. And that there are wider issues for the Movement, including things for users, things keeping users from editing, and things pushing people out of active editing that the Board and Foundation rightly should be paying a lot of attention to. There are both valid issues the editor community has objected to, and things the editor community (enwiki at least) is grossly dysfunctional about that the Board and Foundation must still focus on. Both separation for perspective and feedback and relationship care are needed. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

More focused but where I was trying to go. Thank you. Perhaps two C level positions, Chief Editor Officer to liase and advocate there, and Chief Reader Officer to research and liase and advocate there, too. Q: How can we identify a Reader representative we could put on the Board? George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone vast fact the as its historically should just separation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hoi, We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is only one way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that part of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else. Thanks, GerardM On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: absurdity. builders to we I editor. valley be But who and whatever that Foundation https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hoi, You are wrong. The English Wikipedia is only brutally big. Wikidata is slowly but surely becoming one of the most important resources for data on the Internet. Commons is the biggest dysfunctional repository of freely licensed material. Wikisource is where for many languages much of the books end up (for want of new books and for the cost of publishing). Really. If projects like Wikidata and Commons received proper attention to give them the credit they are due, they would improve exponentially while more attention to Wikipedia only improves things marginally. People who are one track ponies about Wikipedia are in fact clueless. They forget about what we stand for; sharing the sum of all knowledge. That sum of all knowledge is better represented in both Commons and Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM On 25 February 2016 at 07:17, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: that host wrote: the swap Hopefully WMF, care. become people the ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; us becomes different https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hoi, Nice that you prove my point. My point was that when proper attention would be given to Commons, it would stand proud. Important achievements have been made, because of Commons and its community we have GLAM (just as an example). When it was possible to find images in Commons, it would no longer be dysfunctional. It is a travesty that while we discuss search in the light of the recent huha, we have important functionality from Wikidata that increases the results substantially for any and all languages and the notion that finding material in Commons (aka search) is so bad that I do not even consider Commons for illustrations for my blog.. Even on this Wikimedia-l demonstrate how limited their understanding is of what it is what we do and where we can easily even cheaply improve, If you want 100,000 more editors for Wikipedia (any language) there is such a glaring opportunity that people do not even see it before them. It would not cost much and it will improve their well being in a meaningful way. Thanks, GerardM On 25 February 2016 at 07:37, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: notice while wrote: successful measurable that on a can service accounts. ordinary Visual the the silicon could set own, While take ?subject=unsubscribe> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic &lt;dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org wrote: > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will > be true now matter how much you reorganize it: > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not > to the movement. > ​Hi Denny, Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view. They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors an idea of what's expected of them. It includes: ​ ​"... ​ I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization, speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization accountable. ​" [1] Sarah [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract ​ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

One could argue that any action that would injure the movement would also injure the Foundation by definition. Denny is quite correct that trustees have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however there's usually a fair bit of latitude in how that obligation is interpreted.

In an organization where the purpose and Bylaws explicitly (Article II) call for it to be supporting the movement, the Board should be balancing that aspect anyways. Yes, the Board cares for the Foundation, but the Foundation cares for the Movement, and if it stops doing that it's off chartered purpose and the Board needs to intervene. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org&gt; will not directors organization, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic (as he knows).

I think that a body that is able to speak for the movement as a whole would be extremely beneficial in order to relieve the current Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation from that role. It simply cannot - and indeed, legally must not - fulfill this role.

To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will be true now matter how much you reorganize it: - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the Foundation. They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so. - the Board members have fiduciary responsibilities. No, we cannot just talk about what we are doing. As said, the loyalty of a Board member is towards the organization, not the movement.

just very short input here on the list: A community council or membership structure representing the diversity and plurality of the movement in a democratic way would be great idea, in fact it is a much needed idea to be realized. BUT: This structure would need to be a true counter-balance to WMF/BoT. Therefore true power (decision-making, money etc.) would need to be transfered in appropiate ways into the responsibility of this new structure. If all the final decisionmaking would stay with the BoT and the management of WMF any such more representative council would only be a toothless thing. Best, Jens 2016-02-25 5:21 GMT+01:00 James Alexander &lt;jamesofur(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org some but had will Foundation. role "duty members mission of not like I the http://www.trusteemag.com/display/TRU-news-article.dhtml?dcrPath=/templated… _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

- the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the Foundation. They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Denny Vrandecic &lt;dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: First, I suppose it's clear to you that you won't be reelected because of this paragraph. While your legal obligations belong to WMF, your political obligations belong to those who elected you. And the paragraph above is far from being politically wise. Second, this is the exact part of the Board's internal mythology about the enemies inside of the movement. They've been repeated since Florance and Angela leaved the Board.

responsible for spreading that. What I can't understand is the fact that I don't see that too much (s)elected Board members have integrity above Jimmy's rumors threshold.

Third, may you give to me *one* example of movement being in confrontation with WMF's legal foundations, thus requiring Board to react to protect WMF against the evil community?

I suppose Jimmy is the most responsible for spreading that. What I can't understand is the fact that I don't see that too much (s)elected Board members have integrity above Jimmy's rumors threshold.

I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic (as he knows). I think that a body that is able to speak for the movement as a whole would be extremely beneficial in order to relieve the current Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation from that role. It simply cannot - and indeed, legally must not - fulfill this role. To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will be true now matter how much you reorganize it: - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the Foundation. They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so. - the Board members have fiduciary responsibilities. No, we cannot just talk about what we are doing. As said, the loyalty of a Board member is towards the organization, not the movement. - the Board members that are elected by the communities or through chapters represent the voice of the communities or the chapters. That's not the case. All Board members are equal, and have the same duties and rights. Our loyalty is towards the organization, not towards the constituency that voted for us. These things are not like this because the Wikimedia Foundation has decided in a diabolic plan for world domination to write the rules in such a way. These things are so because US laws - either federal or state laws, I am not a lawyer and so I might be babbling nonsense here anyway, but this is my understanding - requires a Board of Trustees to have these legal obligations. This is nothing invented by the WMF in its early days, but rather the standard framework for US non-profits. Now, sure, you may say that this doesn't really matter, the Foundation and the Movement should always be aligned. And where this is usually the case, in those few cases where it is not it will lead to a massive burn. Once you are on the Board, you do not represent the Communities, the Chapters, your favourite Wikimedia project, you are not the representative and defender of Wikispecies or the avatar of Wiktionary - no, you are a Trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and your legal obligations and duties are defined by the Bylaws and the applicable state and federal laws. So, whoever argues that the Board of Trustees is to be the representative of the communities has still to explain to me how to avoid this conundrum. Simply increasing the number of community elected seats won't change anything in a sustaining way. This is why I very much sympathize with the introduction of a new body that indeed represents the communities, and whose loyalty is undivided to the Movement as a whole. I currently do not see any body that in the Wikimedia movement that would have the moral authority to discuss e.g. whether Wikiversity should be set up as a project independent of the Wikimedia movement, whether Wikisource would deserve much more resources, whether Stewards have sufficient authority, whether the German Wikimedia chapter has to submit itself to the FDC proposal, whether a restart of the Croatian Wikipedia is warranted, etc. I am quite sure that none of these questions are appropriate for the Board of Trustees, but I would love to hear the opinion of others on this. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Denny Vrandecic &lt;dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org wrote: > Thank you for the diverse input. A few points to Razmy's proposal. > I have trouble with suggestions that state "we can ensure diversity by > creating regional seats". First, why these regions? What does each region > seat represent? Potential readers? Actual readers? Human population at > large? Why not number of active editors? Without deciding that we do not > know whether the regions you suggest make any sense. > Second, why regions at all? How do regions ensure that we have a diversity > in age? Sex? Gender? Wealth? Religion? Cultural background? Educational > background? Diversity has not only the aspect of being from a specific > region, there is so much more to that. > Also, the increase in number of Trustees makes the Board more expensive > and more ineffective. I would be rather unhappy with such an increase. It > is hard enough to get anything done at the current size. I would appreciate > any proposal that reduces the number of Trustees, not increases it. > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Ramzy Muliawan < ramzymuliawan14(a)gmail.com > > wrote: >> >> > This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated >> > Board, nor is a developing world-dominated. >> >> >> "Nor is a developed world-dominated." >> >> Sorry, my bad. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Brion Vibber &lt;bvibber(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: that board's it As much as I agree with Brion, probably Denny's message is telling us a lot. I haven't read carefully the WMF Board Pledge of personal commitment, but this is not the first time this issue is discussed: see for example Cristian mail, two months ago, tackling the very specific thing. [1] Maybe the Board "feels" a lot of pressure about this, and this is a problem on itself. We all know that "toxicity" of an environment doesn't need laws or written rules, but people being people, social pressure, etc. If Board members feels without power, bound to the WMF and not the Movement, that's a real problem we need to look into. Aubrey [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080600.html _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Feb 25, 2016 6:55 AM, "Andrea Zanni" &lt;zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: wrote: the that board's goals it One thing we should do is ensure that the legal obligations of a trustee of a Florida not for profit corporation are not conflated with an arbitrarily-written 'pledge of personal commitment' (or, to be sure, our own preferences). If the pledge is poorly worded or just wrong, it should be corrected. (IANAL, so I'll leave further talk of legal obligations to those more familiar with the topic.) -- brion problem written https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080600.html https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

First, my ideas to reform the Board are not incompatible with a "senate-like" idea. Second, I think that I see at least several reasons why a Senate for WIkimedia movement may not be the best way to go: 1) we already advance bureaucracy. Setting up yet another committee in a hope, that it will solve problems rarely works. It is better to improve the existing institutions. 2) Separating the movement's Senate from the WMF's Board will further advance the divide and disengagement. 3) We already have bodies, whose responsibility is oversight over the movement's resources (the FDC). After four years of lobbying for this idea, I'm really happy to see now that the WMF will be treated more like other organizations in the movement and will undergo a review. We DO NOT need more ideas to separate the WMF from the movement, we need just the opposite. In my view, the Board should gradually include oversight of the movement, rather than just the WMF. 4) The costs of having a 15-20 people Senate that meets in person twice a year match the costs of a small chapter. I don't think it makes sense, resource-wise. 5) Ultimately, Denny's proposal leads to polarizing the field into the WMF vs. everyone else. I would very much rather see a situation in which the WMF is primus inter pares.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Milos Rancic &lt;millosh(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I am not, and have not been employed by any Wikimedia organization. I have no idea where you get this idea from in my letter. I am not scared to be accountable to people I lead, and I hope I have stated my readiness in this department clearly. If you envisage a large, 100 people assembly during Wikimania or Wikimedia Conference, then indeed it is possible to arrange without significant additional cost. However, I believe this is basically an entirely different idea than the one Denny described (or at least the one I understood we're discussing). An assembly would be a body who would voice their opinion only once a year in practice, most likely. I'm not sure what exactly would it do, but surely it would be difficult for it to agree/vote on situations happening within a span of weeks, rather than months. I am not convinced if a body of 100 people meeting once a year is an efficient way to reduce bureaucracy. Of course views may differ. I am saddened you have this perception. https://xkcd.com/552/ That is a good topic for a separate thread! Currently, the list we use is limited to 1500 English speakers. An idea that I have been trying to champion for a while was also community-liaisons: community elected people whose responsibility is day-to-day communication with the WMF and back. This would not be a decisive role, and it is independent from whether we have a senate or assembly or not, but could at least increase the reach of communication and decision making in some areas. Also, discourse is a platform that perhaps will take off at some point. dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I have to register disagreement with the idea that the WMF board is duty-bound to serve the Foundation over the Wikimedia movement.

The whole purpose of the Foundation is to serve the Wikimedia free knowledge movement, as stated in the bylaws. This does not mean that WMF board members must constantly poll Wikimedia movement members on what to do, or only consider what is popular at the time. I believe the WMF board is indeed duty-bound to support the goals the Wikimedia movement, in the way that they feel these goals would best be served over the long-term. Of course, their opinions on the best methods to achieve these goals may well differ from the majority of rank-and-file movement members at times, but it is also part of their duty to pursue what they feel is best for achieving basic movement goals. Brion is also right that at some point in time, when the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation and movement are "accomplished", if the free knowledge paradigm is so successfully distributed throughout academia and society that it no longer makes sense to continue as a corporate entity, it would make sense to wind it up. (I don't foresee this happening for decades.) Perhaps this is merely a translation issue of what "Movement" means in different languages, but I thought it was an important point that needed to be stated. Also, I think the possible models on how to achieve these goals are indeed more diverse than just those on offer in San Francisco and Berlin. Thanks, Pharos On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Denny Vrandecic < dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: first. know did even Movement brought case, of much a on I and body described community with, Wikimedia to communities to shouldn't. scared readiness we're it bad under hear we is _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Wiadomość napisana przez Lane Rasberry &lt;lane(a)bluerasberry.com&gt; w dniu 23.02.2016, o godz. 23:05: Hello, Could I remind you all that there is a board election in progress right now for 2 of the 10 seats? Please see details for the 2016 Affiliate-selected board seats election at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016> Amir, you said that you wanted representation from "India, China, Russia, Iran, Brazil, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Arab countries and finally, all of Africa". If you like, you may encourage anyone from those countries to seek a nomination. Also, it would be very helpful if you could encourage the Wikimedia chapters in those countries to participate in the election in any way that they could, especially by planning to vote during the upcoming voting period. Thyge - we do have a sort of house of representatives and it has a board election happening right now. Nominations for the board are open till March 8! Election starts March 24! Please share the message. Thanks - if anyone has questions post on the election page. yours, On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter &lt;putevod(a)mccme.ru&gt; wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>