On 15/02/13 22:07, John Vandenberg wrote: Surely that will be in the Board of Trustees minutes? Gordo ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.w… WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:38 PM, John Vandenberg &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: I think the review notes we engaged in a proactive trustee search exercise, though it doesn't go into any more detail. Jon D would know the answer, but I think answer was somewhere in the dozens. Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Thanks Chris & Jon for providing the context. Clearly Grayham will bring some valuable experience to the board and it's great to have him involved. However, it's less clear how he will meet the other requirements of being a trustee, in particular understanding the Wikimedia culture of openness and volunteer leadership. Has the board arranged anything for his trustee induction to fill these gaps? In particular, the Treasurer plays a key role in ensuring that certain standards of openness and accountability set out in the Finance Policy, such as: [1] "The key principles underlying this policy are ... financial reporting is clearly expressed and highly transparent" "Individual expense claims are normally published on the office wiki (Administrator) with a summary of the claims posted on the public wiki" "Office expenses and the Chief Executive's expenses are published on the public wiki in summary form" ** "Monthly financial reports to be published on the public wiki" ** Interesting to see this was watered down at the last board meeting, although it's unclear if even the watered-down version has ever been implemented. Is Grayham planning to introduce himself to the community or engage on this list or on the wiki? It's notable that he responded to the advert but then didn't come to the board interest day and didn't put himself up for election. I would be interested to hear his explanation for why this was the case. I presume this decision was taken at the last board meeting on 9-10 February. It's very disappointing that the draft minutes of the last board meeting still haven't been published, a week and a half after the meeting. I asked when this would be published over a week ago and was told that a reasonably final draft was available on Sunday. Chapter policy says that "Volunteers are encouraged to ... hold the Trustees and staff to account, through public and private discussion". [2] It's impossible to do this if we're not even allowed to see on a timely basis the decisions that are being made by the board. Regards, Andrew [1] http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Finance_Policy [2] http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Policy On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Jon Davies &lt;jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey <https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewTurvey> http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

On 20 February 2013 11:17, Andrew Turvey &lt;andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: Publishing draft minutes is quite unusual for a board - most I'm aware of don't publish minutes until they are formally approved at the next meeting (which can be months later) - so I'm not sure a week and a half really qualifies as untimely. I doubt the minutes say much, any way. The discussion was presumably in camera, so there will just be the final decision in the public minutes and we've already been told about that.

Thanks Chris & Jon for providing the context. Clearly Grayham

- Tom - the Articles give the Board discretion about who to co-opt in the event of a casual vacancy, so long as the Board is unanimous. I think that, particularly given the circumstances, we did the right thing to use that discretion. As you indicate in your post, it would have been possible for us to create another process to go through, but I don't think that would have been helpful.