No, I think we've actually done a very superficial identification of the problems. Some of them are so obvious that they are overwhelming the less obvious but equally serious issues.
Honestly, "we need a new board" is probably not an issue. 40% of the board has been seated for less than a year, and another seat is empty and awaiting someone who probably won't have been a WMF board member before. Two more seats are currently being contested. It is entirely conceivable that by the time we get to Wikimania we will only have two people with more than 14 months' experience on the board. No, "new board" isn't an issue, despite how many people keep saying it is; transfer of information at the hand-off last Wikimania probably was an issue, and new board member orientation definitely was (and is). The issues with the appointment of one of the "board selected" members recently was at least partly because, as I understand it, there has never been a written process for how to vet potential board members for most of the things we all assumed board members were screened for. WHile I'll be the first to admit I rolled my eyes too, I'm hard-pressed to openly condemn a bunch of people who'd never done a task before for not getting it perfectly right. (Note that even the WMF staffer assigned to assist in the vetting, Boryana Dineva, had been an employee for only a few days when handed the assignment, knowing almost nothing about the community, the organization, the board, or even what to look for when vetting a potential board member.) So, "let's restructure the board" is a wish-list item. The structure of the board wasn't a root cause. The processes of the board, including the orientation process, and the lack of documentation or clarity of the process, were much closer to root causes here. That's just one example. Risker/Anne On 26 February 2016 at 21:04, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> wrote: > Risker and Brion: > > I very much agree with the principles you're stating, and am coming to > realize I should have framed my message differently. There has actually > been quite a lot of discussion of what the problems are, and I am basing my > suggestions on the ones that I've personally seen a lot of attention to. > Namely (as I stated, in part, above): > * It might take a very long time to get a new ED, which would be bad > * We might get an ED who does not effectively absorb information and values > from staff and community > * Appointing an interim ED in a hurry (one month) might not bring us > somebody who's best for the long term > * Funders (both institutions and individuals) might be skeptical about > giving, due to recent issues > * On Point #6, a great deal of work has already been done on identifying > problems here, and I look forward to seeing more synthesis etc. on wiki: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap > > There is, I agree, much more work to be done in identifying and clarifying > further problems we should be looking to address. But from what I've read > and heard, there seems to be some pretty strong consensus around the > problems I've identified above; and ideally, I would have stated that out > in an intro to my message. If there is *disagreement* on those issues, I > think it would be good to hear it. > > Along with you, I welcome further deliberation of what the problems are > that should be solved, and if I suggested otherwise I regret giving that > impression. > > I strongly hope and believe, though, that the Board is already working to > address the subset of rather obvious problems that is at least similar to > what I listed above. Those problems need to be addressed quickly, and I > believe it's best if various stakeholders in the Wikimedia vision -- not > just the 9 members of the Board -- weigh in on the best way to address > them. If there is a consensus that we shouldn't do that here in public, I > can take it off this list; but speaking for myself, I'd like to see some > public deliberation and consensus-building about more immediate steps, > rather than a bunch of individual efforts to lobby the Board. > > I don't intend any of this to be a total solution. Regarding Keegan's > response, of course there is always a seat at the table! But I appreciate > your speaking up about it. Still, my list is very much influenced by what I > have heard from staff, board, etc. over many months -- so it's not like > your seat is getting cold without you. :) > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Brion Vibber <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Strong +1 to Risker. > > > > Collecting ideas to work more on as we move forward: YES. Keeping the > > constructive attitude and opened comm channels I've seen here and and > among > > staff internally: YES. > > > > But let's be deliberate, and considerate. We do have to learn and process > > before we implement anything. > > > > That all said I think I'm approaching my monthly list message quota, so > I'm > > probably going to quiet down on list for a bit as I talk to people in SF. > > :) > > > > I'll be making public-side notes on meta under my user page. > > > > -- brion > > On Feb 26, 2016 4:59 PM, "Risker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think in fairness that it is not just staff who are feeling this is > all > > > moving too fast. The overwhelming majority of community members, and > in > > > particular community members who don't read and speak English fluently, > > are > > > likely to be pretty overwhelmed right now too. > > > > > > > > > I am concerned that what we are seeing right now are a whole pile of > > > solutions when we haven't yet worked out what the actual problems are. > > > This is actually quite a bad thing, because it creates a climate where > > > people come to a conclusion about what to do before they have worked > out > > > whether or not it is solving a problem, creating a different problem, > > > "fixing" a non-existent problem, or immaterial to the actual problems. > > > > > > Let's work out what went wrong before we really start pushing what we > > think > > > will make things right. The foundation is not a wiki where quick and > > easy > > > corrections are considered the norm; in fact, based on the concerns of > > some > > > that strategy changed practically on a quarterly basis, some slow > > > considered thinking is probably called for. The Wikimedia movement has > > not > > > had time to catch up with current events and certainly doesn't need > > > solutions before it's barely worked out why there's a trainwreck on the > > > mailing list. And...perhaps most importantly.... we are talking about > > real > > > people here. The board and executives, the staff, the community > > > members....we're all people. Moving too fast without figuring out what > > the > > > actual issues are is harmful to the human beings here. > > > > > > The collective "we" have not had time to understand the problems. > Quite a > > > few of the "solutions" I've seen on this list in the last 24-48 hours > are > > > nothing much more than personal wishlists; almost all of them are > > proposing > > > to solve problems that may or may not even exist. > > > > > > Let's work more on problem identification first. > > > > > > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > > > On 26 February 2016 at 19:44, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > To Oliver and Keegan -- I hear you guys loud and clear, and I am very > > > aware > > > > that the trauma of the last few months has taken this kind of toll. > > > > Although there is of course much I don't know, I have been talking > > with a > > > > number of staff, board, etc. for many months now about this. So to > > > whatever > > > > degree it's possible to empathize without "being there," I do. > > > > > > > > However, I'm not trying to push things forward at a pace that's > > > comfortable > > > > *for me*, I'm trying to focus on things that will impact *what it's > > > > possible to do*. > > > > > > > > The prospect of a drawn-out, even multi-year search for the next > > > long-term > > > > Executive Director is not a good one. The way the organization > rebuilds > > > > itself and sets expectations will have a huge impact on that. The > > impact > > > on > > > > fund-raising will be felt, as well; high-profile contention around a > > > grant > > > > is being discussed throughout the philanthropy world, and will impact > > the > > > > way individual donors respond to banners, as well. > > > > > > > > I am confident that the Board is already turning its attention to > > issues > > > > like these. Many things need to be done whenever an executive > director > > > > leaves an organization, and there are many reasons to attend to them > > in a > > > > timely fashion -- without rushing through and making bad decisions. > > > > > > > > Individual Trustees have expressed interest and gratitude for the > ideas > > > > under discussion, and I appreciate knowing that they are considering > > > input. > > > > This list may not be the best way to reach the board, but it's a good > > > place > > > > to see whether there is consensus around certain ideas. > > > > > > > > That's what I'm trying to do. I know that forging ahead while > exhausted > > > > sucks, and I am not trying to push anybody faster than they want to > go. > > > But > > > > I also think that this moment for careful deliberation shouldn't be > > > missed; > > > > some of the opportunities will pass by very quickly if nothing is > done. > > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
