Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/January 2021 - Approval of Bylaws amendments and upcoming call for feedback about the selection of new trustees

Latest comment: 3 years ago by JKoerner (WMF) in topic Diff

Thank you edit

@Raystorm: Thanks to you and the entire board for reaffirming that the community/affiliate trustees are selected by the community/affiliates, and are not merely appointed by the board from among the community/affiliates. And also thanks for ensuring that there is a balance between community- and board- appointed trustees. These were my principal concerns with the draft version and I appreciate your work in addressing them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 02:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some terms clarification edit

Hi!

  • What is this exactly affiliate-selected? Is this like "from Wikimedia chapters", like this plus something else, something all different?
  • The last paragraph ("Maintaining a balance <...>) seems meaningless as it is, because 8 cannot be bigger than itself in any case, 7 neither (like 8 > 8 or 7 > 8). Would it be correct to read the paragraph as a regulation in case of an incomplete Board. Say someone during his/her term died (God forbid!) or resigned for whatever reason. Say there are only 14 members left, 7 assigned, 7 from the community. Then the Board cannot assign the 8th - because it will make more that 7 from the community. Is this correct?

Thank you in advance for any clarifications. FYI: ru.wiki discussion is here --Neolexx (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Neolexx: Re "affiliate-selected": See Affiliate-selected Board seats. Affiliates includes chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups. --Yair rand (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Neolexx: Thanks for asking your question about "maintaining a balance." I think this message from antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv on Wikimedia-l might answer your question. If it does not answer your question, please let me know. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
That answers my questions perfectly, thank you both! --Neolexx (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

In case of non-acceptance edit

@Raystorm:, I'm a little concerned that the Board is creating all the options. Can I check that the format of consideration will not be "which of these is most liked", but "which of these is both most liked and liked by a majority of editors"? In the event that the Community does not back any option the Board will need to re-consider the method - most preferably by asking the Community how they would like to do it. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nosebagbear: Hi, this call for feedback is an open exploration of ideas, not a survey between a closed set of options or a support/oppose type of vote. We are preparing a slightly structured brainstorm. We want to hear from many communities and affiliates in many languages, offering a fair representation of our movement’s diversity. Full agreement or full disagreement will be impossible. From that point, we can relax and discuss the best ways to solve the problems with the current processes that the Board wants to fix.
On Monday, we will publish a problem statement and some ideas the Board is considering to address the formulated problems. Some of these ideas will be more specific, some more general. Some will be compatible with each other; some will be exclusive. Some will have one implementation; others could be implemented in many ways. We will encourage participants to suggest their own ideas as well. Look forward to an interesting movement conversation regardless of anyone’s initial opinions. Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Qgil-WMF: I mean, I never stated that the standard "Full agreement or full disagreement" was the one we should use. Not sure why it was used, other than to perhaps divert from the rather more substantive absolute requirement that whatever the final option (if not just the status quo) have a open verifiable community consensus (in terms of absolute number of participating editors). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Nosebagbear: I'm sorry if I have upset you. "Full agreement or full disagreement" are my own words, like the rest of my reply. I wasn't trying to quote you, but to address your questions. I wasn't trying to divert either. In the next few days, we are going to publish all the information related to this call for feedback. If there are more questions we can address, we'll be happy to. Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Diff edit

I posted a sort of three-way diff between the original text, the changes proposed in October, and the final version at Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2020 - Proposed Bylaws changes/Three-way diff.

(Unrelated very minor point: Did anyone on the Board notice that the change to multiple vice chairs makes the references to "the vice-chair" in Section 4 a bit confusingly worded?) --Yair rand (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Yair rand. I appreciate your eye for detail on this point about vice chairs and vice chair being inconsistent or unclear. I'll write this down in the feedback. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

What do the changes about the CEO mean in practice? edit

Hi all, There have been a few questions about what the changes about the CEO mean in practice. I thought posting this here might help provide more information.

The proposed revisions to the Bylaws related to the Chief Executive Officer codify existing practices, including the title change for the Executive Director position and the CEO’s attendance at portions of the Board’s executive sessions. The revised Bylaws would not make any additional changes to the CEO’s role.

Please reach out if you would like more clarification on this. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Return to "Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/January 2021 - Approval of Bylaws amendments and upcoming call for feedback about the selection of new trustees" page.