Oliver,
I have thought about running more than once (:
Perhaps I am reading more into that comment than was intended.
James,
I have mixed feelings about having discussions behind closed doors.
Sometimes it's convenient or emotionally easier to do so, but I worry about
losing our value of openness in the process. The majority of my evaluation
is based on what I've seen in writing from board minutes, which seem pretty
sparse on Q&A with the ED and staff. By contrast, I'm accustomed to our
generally open meetings of government entities here in Washington State
where we have some pretty expansive open records and open meetings laws,
and these seem to viewed in a positive light by the public which wants to
understand the positions of its elected officials. A mice toward more
openness about board discussions might ease some of my concerns.
Thanks,
Pine
On Mar 13, 2015 12:32 PM, "Oliver Keyes" <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(Personal capacity)
Pine: I think you're reading far more into Phoebe's comment than it
actually contained. What she said was "I trust our legal team to make
decisions about what legal actions to participate in." In other words,
to make evaluations about the probability of success, the necessity of
the thing that's being (defended|challenged) to the legal framework
that lets the projects exist, and act on that basis.
Unless I missed an election and the board now contains the equivalent
expertise in internet law and the intricacies of our governing
frameworks to an entire legal department, it seems entirely
appropriate that these kinds of evaluations be left to the, you know,
lawyers. I agree that boards should ask tough questions, but I've
never been in a WMF board meeting and, to my knowledge, neither have
you. There's a wide range of options between "directly making
decisions about legal questions" and "not asking questions"; it's not
as binary as you seem to believe. This applies to the VE as much as it
does anything else. If you think the WMF needs a more activist board -
which seems to mean "a board that makes individual, specific product
decisions and assumes legal expertise", I encourage you to run in the
next election and we'll see what the movement as a whole thinks of
that position.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm generally supportive of this legal
action, but I am troubled by this
statement:
"I trust our legal team to make decisions about what legal actions to
participate in."
In general I think highly of Michelle, but this statement fits a
long-running pattern I percieve in WMF governance of the board being
deferential to the ED and staff. This goes back to Sue's tenure and
possibly longer. I feel that the Board should respectfully ask tough
questions about staff recommendations. Had the board done so, we might
all
have been saved from the MediaViewer,
VisualEditor, and other product
dramas because the Board would have been vigilant about project
selection
and quality control. WMF needs an activist board.
All of the guidance
that
I read about boards in general says that good
boards do due diligance,
and
I would encourage the WMF board to be proactive
and ask tough questions.
This can be done while maintaining a positive and respectful atmosphere.
Thank you,
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>