[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Ray Saintonge]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>   
>> And (also by the text of the minutes that is published - seems there are some
>> edits there that are discussing later developements rather than what transpired
>> at the meeting itself; which is probably illustrative in a positive
>> fashion, even
>> though it confuses the text of the minutes as a document of a specific event)
>> specifically Erik was tasked with drafting the resolution; which after inquiring
>> with Mike, (someone, not clear who) decided that it was a bylaws matter, not
>> a resolution matter.
>>     
> I have vague memories. I think Mike recommanded to have it a bylaws 
> update.Yes Note that voting a resolution can be real quick and 
> straightforward. Bylaws update is a little bit more demanding.
>   
A simple resolution that can be easily passed can be upgraded to by-law 
status later.
>> If there has been a subsequent decision to not implement the voted on
>> decision even as a bylaws change, that is regrettably in the utmost. A real
>> step backwards in clarifying things between the roles of staff and board.
>>     
> We are currently DEEP in the middle of this discussion. As I already 
> explained recently, there is disagreement on the board as to who should 
> be a board member, what the board member role should be (compared to 
> staff), whether a board member is allowed to be involved in executive 
> matters, whether a board member should have professional skills or not, 
> which % of community members should be on the board versus professional 
> outsiders. Etc...
>   
Are the current five members of the Board even enough to make those 
kinds of decisions.  At the same time, if there are to be more members 
involved there needs to be a way of choosing them.  These are important 
and highly sensitive issues.  I don't expect you to identify particular 
Board members with particular positions.  It's enough to say that these 
divisions exist.  If furthermore the Board can't fill vacancies out of a 
fear that the newcomers might contradict the favoured position of some 
existing members, that's paralysis. 

We had a long forewarning of the Michael Davis vacancy; there's no 
excuse for that position to continue vacant.  At times I'm even tempted 
to nominate someone like Anthony as our own version of Celestine V; he's 
been the most vocal about the lack of financial reporting.  He's 
querulous, but at least he puts a lot of homework into arriving at his 
wrong opinions. ;-)

Look at the list of participants in this thread.  I often disagree with 
some of them, but one cannot escape the fact that a disproportionate 
number have been around long enough to have a deep emotional commitment 
to the Wikimedia projects.  There is enough caring and talent available 
to expand the decision beyond an incestuous gang of five.

(Come to think of it I don't know what to make of the fact that on the 
present Board the three elected members are female, and the two 
appointed ones are male. :-X )
> So in the middle of this pretty serious discussion, the board->staff and 
> staff->board, is honestly just one more piece.
And introducing a Wikicouncil would add one more dimension to the 
discussion. :-)
Ec