[Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation

[Birgitte SB]

I will confirm Ting's explanation here regarding NomCom. There was no list for 2009 appointments.  So it is true that Matt was not on the 2009 list.  No one was.  Matt was interviewed by Micheal and Sue, who as members of Nomcom, were aware of our decision to focus on finding expertise in both fundraising and 501(c)(3) organizations for the vacant seats. I find Matt to be a great fit for WMF with the sort of experience we have been most anxious for.  Personally I wish that Nomcom could have located Matt a year ago and presented him as part of a Oct 15 2008 list and that he would have been able to share is experience with WMF throughout this year instead of just this short interm.  This of course did not happen, but it should not seen a fault of Matt's that it was not the case. 
 
Birgitte SB

--- On Wed, 8/26/09, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:

> From: Ting Chen <wing..philopp at gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 3:44 PM
> Hello Kropotkine_113,
> 
> since I am on the NomCom I will answer your questions.
> 
> Kropotkine_113 wrote:
> > Has Matt Halprin been designated to the Board by the
> Nominating Commitee
> > (NOMCOM) ? This is explicity required if I read
> correctly this page :
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announcement_Q%26A
> >   
> This is not correct. Essentially the NomCom should nominate
> the board 
> members, and should do this at the end of last year. But it
> didn't 
> worked out. There are multiple reasons for that. Basically
> that was the 
> first time that we worked how it can work and how not. We
> are simply 
> lack of experience. So, it didn't work out last winter. We
> should have 
> four nominated candidates appointed to the board by the
> begin of 2009 
> but we had only two by that time. According to the bylaw of
> the 
> Foundation IV 6 the board can appoint trustees because of
> vacancy, this 
> is the case. So Matt was not on the NomCom list. But we had
> informed the 
> NomCom though about this process. After Wikimania the
> NomCom would 
> resume its work and make suggestions for next year. So Matt
> would be 
> included by NomCom in its list that it would suggest to the
> board by 
> December or would drop out.
> 
> > Does he fulfill the Nomitanig Commitee selection
> criterion : "Membership
> > in the Wikimedia community" ?
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nominating_Committee/Selection_criteria#General_needed_traits
> >
> > Where is the list of the other candidates designated
> by the NOMCOM ?
> >   
> The list of NomCom is not published because of privacy. It
> is a very 
> simple thing. If someone is suggested on the list and he is
> not selected 
> or he declined, in either cases can it can both be
> embarassing for the 
> person as well as for the Foundation. So the NomCom had
> decided on its 
> first meeting that the list would not be published and
> should be kept 
> confidential. This would also be the case for the coming
> years.
> > Could we see the discussions and the recommandations
> of the nominating
> > commitee ?
> >   
> Because of the nature of the confidenciality of the NomCom
> the 
> discussion are kept internal. But there are meeting minutes
> and the 
> mailing list is archived. The NomCom published a status
> report which is 
> published here: [1]
> > Is it possible to know which member of the Board of
> Trustees agree this
> > appointment ? Or at least juste the repartition
> support/against in the
> > Board ?
> >   
> The discussion about this assignment and the voting about
> it would be 
> published as one of the topics of the August board meeting.
> I want to 
> respect the secratory offices role here and don't make any
> announcements 
> prior of Kat's publication of the minutes. What I can say
> at this point 
> is that I voted for Matt for the following reasons: First
> of all Jimmy 
> and Michael interviewed and talked with Matt. Both of them
> had 
> recommended him as a valuable plus for the board. The board
> had 
> interviewed Matt in Buenos Aires, had discussed all the
> problems that 
> may be raised or values that may be added. According of all
> these 
> evaluations I feel no problem as voting for him. We worked
> with Matt in 
> Buenos Aires during our strategic planning session and I
> feel that our 
> positive evaluation was confirmed as Matt had inputted a
> lot of insights 
> out of his experiences about procedures and measurements of
> success.
> 
> Ting
> 
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nominating_committee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>