[Foundation-l] Board restructuring and community

[Samuel Klein]

Birgitte, I think I agree with most of what you write.  Some specific
comments:

Birgitte SB wrote:
> If there had been a large discussion on board restructuring before the
meeting I doubt that the current compromise would have even been on the
table for us to discuss.

Why not?

> And let us not forget the numerous threads on board restructuring from
Florence which received little or no responses.

This seems to me a topic which is not very conducive to threads, but more to
revision of specific proposals with attention paid to details.  At any rate,
see below for reciprocity re: the lack of response from the Board to the
Volunter council discussion.  This is not lack of interest, it is lack of
communication.

> If there had been a discussion beforehand, I think it would have focused
on
> extreme positions rather than anything close to a workable compromise.

Perhaps so.  One could say the same thing about making changes to the
mission and vision statements.

> And most board members would not share on this list what issues are
> deal-breakers for them, so we would be unable to offer anything specific
for a
> proposal that would having any hope of passing.

I should hope this is not the case -- why do you say it is?  Hopefully they
will at least share on this list whether or not this is true :-)
   @ Board members : are you wary of sharing your true positions on delicate
issues on this list?  Why or why not?

> And I think in general, community concerns over the board have been
discussed
> enough in the past to ensure the board was not uniformed.

Perhaps.  The same concerns led to the proposal of a volunteer council, with
apparently more legwork and discussion than was given to the new board
proposal, and the board hasn't given much feedback there.   It isn't that
the presented proposal is terrible, it is that absent strong indication that
such a resolution was in the works, it is far too significant to have been
made without notice.

If you think the core issue here is deciding on a set of rules for board
membership that most rules-lawyers won't disagree with too much, I think you
are pursuing a red herring.   The issue here is community empowerment, not
just through the board, but through engagement in the process that brought
about new bylaws.  The loss is a community that feels incrementally
disempowered.  The benefit of a vibrant discussion, even one involving flame
wars and extreme positions, is almost independent of the impact it has on
the final decision : it inspires those who care about the future of
Wikimedia and the projects to take an active role in discussing their
future.

The misfortune here is that, despite the thousands of Wiki[mp]edians who
care deeply about community governance, we were somehow not able to generate
a lively and informative discussion about altering our own must central
governing body.

> On the other hand, I do not see why the board cannot treat the current
proposal as
> in a "community comment period" right now before making the actual
amendment
> to the by-laws.

Perhaps this is how it was meant.  That would be an excellent update to the
announcement.

SJ

> For one thing I would suggest that the "expertise" seats constitute
> "up to four seats" rather require four seats to always be filled.