Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

The advisory board basically never gets used as a group (and IMO it wouldn't really make sense to). In my experience, people named to the list fill one of a few functions: 1. Big Names who don't have the time to commit to being on the board or are otherwise unsuited to being one of the main decision-makers, but whose formal association with the project makes sense and is beneficial. (I think of Clay Shirky as one of these: he is busy with his existing work, but he is a great champion of the projects; he's given presentations and press mentions that were helpful, consults on some issues, and has offered his university's resources.) 2. People who are prominent in some area relevant to the projects and whose work touches on it, who offer their expertise in their particular domain and may be all but invisible to others. (Melissa Hagemann is an example--she is prominent in open access and the people working in that domain have worked with her, but people outside of it may not see her work.) 3. People who have held high-level formal roles within WMF and whose continued connection is recognized through being named an advisor. In an organization with Senior Fellows, this is probably what we would be called; it basically recognizes that although these people no longer hold their roles, they continue to be supporters and advisors and would like to continue to be available to offer their input and expertise. I fall into this role, for example, and the structure of having the formal connection makes it easier for current board and staff to call on me. (FWIW, I was named to the advisory board by a resolution after my term ended, though I see the page is poorly-enough maintained that I'm not listed.) 4. People we hoped would fall into one of these roles, but who have not actually kept up the relationship or whose guidance turned out not to meet our needs. It is useful to have a formal structure to call on people for their help; most of the help the AB members provided in my experience was through 1-on-1 consultation (more by Sue than by myself). But I think there are more people in category 4 than there ought to be. The renewal mechanism was intended to make it easier to graceully remove people who fell into that category without making it feel like they were "fired", but as it turns out if you renew some but not others, people will feel that way no matter how gracefully you try to do it, and probably not wrongly--and since they are all people who were originally named because of a desire to strengthen the relationship, souring it by ending their terms is a very difficult thing to do, especially when it is easy to keep them. Yes, the advisory board is invited to Wikimania with travel expenses covered, though of the few members who come, some pay their own way anyhow; the financial cost is relatively small. (I would say I made a principled stand to pay my own way last year, but really I just waffled over it for a while until it was late enough that I'd have been embarrassed to submit receipts.) In my tenure the advisory board was considered a few times, but it was just never a high-priority item; I am aware of it having been considered again last year but not sure if anything came of it. The main drawback I think of is that people tend to forget it exists until too late in a decision process, and many who could usefully consult them don't even know who is on the advisory board, what their backgrounds are, and how receptive they are to messages, so it is hard to use them effectively. -Kat On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tanvir Rahman <wikitanvir(a)gmail.com> wrote: