Hmm. It's more like we have little evidence that the former is happening,
perhaps because of the latter. Anyway, yes, I think I've made my point and
will let this thread get back on its main track.
Pine
On Mar 13, 2015 5:43 PM, "Oliver Keyes" <ironholds(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So we've now moved from "the board
doesn't ask hard enough questions!"
to "the board doesn't tell us enough"? Those are distinct concerns. If
you have them, I'd suggest spinning off a thread so we can keep this
one to what it's meant to be discussing.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Pardon the mobile device mistype. A *move* toward
more openness.
Pine
On Mar 13, 2015 12:49 PM, "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>
<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.w…
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>