Agree, in that I found that the Board's minutes from last year, for the session in
which it eliminated the identification process for those administrators it accords access
to personally-identifiable identification of editors, were very vague. Aside from the fact
that SJ Carden moved to approve that and the other changes, and that WMF lawyer Michelle
Paulson briefed it and then left the room, there was no hint of the reasoning. It would
also have been nice to see if any trustee had voted against the policy change, which I
think was an extremely bad one, and likely to make Moiramoira-type stalking incidents more
frequent in the future.
Trillium Corsage
14.03.2015, 06:35, "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi Bishakha,
Pardon my forking the thread here.
I have previously asked about having more transparency and openness for WMF
Board meetings. From my skimming of Board minutes, it's difficult to
perceive what level of diligence is being done by the Board. I realize that
corporate notetaking practices sometimes suggest summarizing discussions in
meeting minutes as "discussion about X" rather than listing detailed
questions. I would encourage more detail and transparency about Board
deliberations, along the lines of what is being done for departmental
quarterly reviews (which I greatly appreciate).
<text clipped for brevity>