[Foundation-l] Agenda for October board meeting

[Florence Devouard]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> Florence Devouard wrote:
>>> 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 ? ;-)
>>>     
> 
> You may not believe me, but yes, I was, at the time, quite a bit.
> I really wanted you to run on a platform that I could have endorsed.
> In fact that was what I waited for. And since you did not, decided
> in the end to run myself. And was duely evaluated as wanting,
> by the electorate ;-)
> 
> It is true on the other side of the coin to say that I feared that
> you would run on a platform that I would have no choice than
> to oppose. I think you don't appreciate enough how in the
> dark ordinary members of the community (such as myself) are
> as to where each board member falls on each issue. This is the
> dark side of the current lack of transparency.
> 
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

I actually second you on this.

The latest elections were much better organized than the previous ones 
in that regard. The system of Q&A made it much clearer what each 
candidate opinion was and limited the pitfall of personal attacks and 
bickering on the candidate talk page.

A couple of days ago, John wrote an email regarding technical strategy 
and made reference to two statements I made several months ago.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Update_of_Foundation_organization_(March_07)
and
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/10_wishes_for_2008

I think your concern will not improve. After I sent my "10 wishes for 
2008", where I tried to outline what was important to me, what I 
intended to truely put my own energy on, I was told that individual 
board members should not express such public personal opinions. That 
such documents should only be the result of a carefully brainstormed 
time between all board board members and management. That board members 
should thrive to always appear in agreement, and in particular always 
supportive of any acts of the management. In short, learn to disagree in 
  silence or quit.

Whilst there are obviously huge benefits to this positionning, that's 
simply not something I can live with. I am fine being criticized for 
giving once my own position. But not fine when it becomes a habit and 
the default situation. It may be perfect in the corporate world, but I 
do not think that's the right choice for Wikimedia. As such, I am better 
out than in :-)

Note that it does not mean the current board and staff do a bad job. I 
think they do overall a good job, some do an excellent job. But 40 years 
old is a good time to ponder on what one is happy to cope with, and not, 
and act accordingly.

I still more or less know what each board member position is on 
"issues", but I'll soon join you on the dark side of the ignorants ;-)