> > *If the point is to improve communication, then a more practical approach > might be to designate "observers" who are not given authority but merely sit > in with a chapter board. That's assuming that the chapter board level is one > of the places where it makes the most sense to add a communication > interface. > *
35 people from WMF to observ every single chapter? _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.* On 2 September 2011 21:02, Michael Snow <wikipe...@frontier.com> wrote: > On 9/2/2011 12:11 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: > > On 9/1/11 5:37 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > >> On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >>> I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority > >>> for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wiki activities in Brazil are > >>> controlled by Brazilians. At the same time I don't think there is any > >>> value to having a WMF appointee on your board; such a person would find > >>> it difficult to function under circumstances of perpetual conflict of > >>> interest. No other chapter has such a clause. > >> I had never thought of this before, but now that it has been mentioned, > >> I just wanted to disagree, quite respectfully because Ray is awesome of > >> course, and say that I think it is a very interesting idea to have a WMF > >> appointee on the boards of chapters. > >> > >> There should be very few cases where there is a "conflict of interest" > >> since chapters and the Foundation are deeply tied together always (and > >> that's a good thing). I think having a Foundation representative on the > >> board of chapters does present some possibly insurmountable logistical > >> issues (who will they be?) but I actually think such an arrangement > >> might be incredibly valuable for improving communication and > >> *decreasing* perceived conflicts of interest. > >> > >> --Jimbo > > I can not help commenting a bit more on the matter of "conflict of > > interest". I think I can probably say more on the matter than most > > people here. > > > > First because I pushed a LOT for the adoption of a COI policy on the > > board of WMF. And this generated lot's of painful discussions between > > you, Michael and I. In particular with regards to your involvement with > > Wikia. > For those reading whose memories may not be quite long enough - I assume > Florence is referring to Michael Davis here, not to me. The conflict of > interest policy was adopted in 2006, before I was on the board. I just > thought it would help to make the distinction explicit, as it wouldn't > be the first time somebody has gotten us confused. > > Meanwhile, on the subject of mutual board appointments between chapters > and the foundation, I figured I'd chime in as I helped push the idea for > chapters to select foundation board members in the first place. For one > thing, there's a very different power dynamic between the chapters > collectively choosing a couple members of the foundation's board, and > the foundation solely choosing a member of an individual chapter's > board. The chapter-appointed seats cannot really be controlled outside > of the selection process itself, so those board members can act as > freely as their colleagues, and certainly no single chapter can force > them to act in a particular way. This is partly by design, since the > ultimate fiduciary obligations of those board members are still to the > foundation rather than a chapter, and is why we emphasized that they are > not necessarily being selected as "representatives" of the chapters. > However, somebody appointed to a chapter board by the foundation would > be directly answerable to the foundation, and it could be fairly easy to > argue that they are an agent of the foundation. It undermines the > organizational independence much more dramatically. > > If the point is to improve communication, then a more practical approach > might be to designate "observers" who are not given authority but merely > sit in with a chapter board. That's assuming that the chapter board > level is one of the places where it makes the most sense to add a > communication interface. > > --Michael Snow > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
