One could argue that any action that would injure the movement would also
injure the Foundation by definition. Denny is quite correct that trustees
have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however
there's usually a fair bit of latitude in how that obligation is
interpreted.
Cheers,
Craig
On 25 February 2016 at 11:47, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic
<dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
> To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
> be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
> - the Board members have duties of
care and loyalty to the Foundation -
not
> to the movement.
> Hi Denny,
Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
"...
I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
accountable.
" [1]
Sarah
[1]
http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>