WMF Board of Trustees: A Fish Rots from the Head Down

[Vigilant]

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.

Any non-profit board that required volunteer trustees to meet once a week would soon be an empty board.

Correction: Empty of any serious and successful people. I'm sure folks like Fae and Gorman and Gerard would be happy to meet by Skype once a week.

So what would you propose?

[Kelly Martin]

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.

Any non-profit board that required volunteer trustees to meet once a week would soon be an empty board.

Correction: Empty of any serious and successful people. I'm sure folks like Fae and Gorman and Gerard would be happy to meet by Skype once a week.

So what would you propose?

The main purpose of the Board of a nonprofit is to supervise the Executive Director and such other officers as are directly accountable to the Board (often, the Treasurer). I would argue for monthly meetings of at least the Executive Committee (which can be by teleconference) and quarterly meetings of the full Board, at least one of which each year should be in person (the rest can be by teleconference).

The WMF is actually fairly close to this currently; if anything they hold too many in-person meetings of the full Board. Since the WMF is a nonmember organization, however, I would argue for a larger Board, in order to provide for a wider range of opinion within the Board.

[Randy from Boise]

The ONLY reason they have in-person meetings is to expend the travel budget.

They get to go to the annual convention and to some exotic locale at least once a year that way also. Euros go to the USA twice, Yanks go to Europe once...

I'm not saying this is unexpected or unreasonable, only inefficient given modern communications technology.


RfB

Let me be more explicit.

* It's a waste of donor dollars.
* It's incredibly inefficient.
* It's a sop to the wikirati.
* To anyone who pays attention, it looks really bad.
* It probably prevents actual governance lest their perqs be discontinued.

What structure would you propose?

RfB

Sorry Tim, I missed this post.

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.
Public logs of the meetings available on wikipedia commons.
I'd have the agendas published every week prior to the meeting.
I'd have the video transcribed voice to text and searchable.

That would seem to be the way to do it.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.

Any non-profit board that required volunteer trustees to meet once a week would soon be an empty board.

Correction: Empty of any serious and successful people. I'm sure folks like Fae and Gorman and Gerard would be happy to meet by Skype once a week.

So what would you propose?

Ah, so that's why the face-to-face meetings are so important... They are "compensation."

If one really wanted to have a Board oversee SF, they'd need to be paid positions and to meet by Skype or some other means with extreme frequency.

Alternatively, the fact must be faced that the Board is only nominally in charge of the show in SF; real power lies elsewhere.

RfB

[greybeard]

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.

Any non-profit board that required volunteer trustees to meet once a week would soon be an empty board.

Correction: Empty of any serious and successful people. I'm sure folks like Fae and Gorman and Gerard would be happy to meet by Skype once a week.

So what would you propose?

The main purpose of the Board of a nonprofit is to supervise the Executive Director and such other officers as are directly accountable to the Board (often, the Treasurer). I would argue for monthly meetings of at least the Executive Committee (which can be by teleconference) and quarterly meetings of the full Board, at least one of which each year should be in person (the rest can be by teleconference).

The WMF is actually fairly close to this currently; if anything they hold too many in-person meetings of the full Board. Since the WMF is a nonmember organization, however, I would argue for a larger Board, in order to provide for a wider range of opinion within the Board.

Kelly has this right, mostly. The frequency of meetings is something of an inverse indicator of the maturity of the organization. Many very successful large non-profit organizations have full board meetings only 3 or 4 times per year.

There are several reasons why this is a Good Thing. First, Boards are not intended to provide day-to-day management of the organization they oversee. When they do, the organization is in failure mode. As Kelly notes, the Board hires a President, CEO, Executive Director, or similarly-named potentate to operate the organization on a daily basis. Ideally, they then evaluate that executive's performance on a regular basis, annually or (less optimally) bi-annually.

Boards are best when they set long-term strategic goals, hire and fire Presidents, raise money from large donors, supervise the investment of any endowment, review and approve annual plans, and conduct and review regular audits. Meddling in the management of lower-level employees, micro-managing the ED, making tactical decisions about programs, and general futzing around marks a bad board.

Boards usually should not meet too often in part because their work should usually be done in committee. Most boards will have standing Finance/Audit, Operations/Facilities, Investment, Governance, and Development committees, which typically meet more frequently than the full Board. Often small Boards and immature organizations lack these committees. There is a limited point in having 5 distinct committees when there are only 9 Trustees.

Each of the Committees and the full Board are usually only as good as their Chair, or whomever sets the agenda and ushers the Board through it. From the minutes prior to February 2013, the WMF Board appears to have been almost wholly ceremonial (or perhaps just really, really bad at taking minutes). Subsequently, it appears that the concerns itself only rarely with strategic matters, but it is hard to tell, given the opacity of the minutes.

[Zoloft]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

[tarantino]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

My opinion of Sj was cemented when he thanked User:Max Rebo Band for his scraping of flickr to upload porn and erotica to commons.

Max Rebo Band's contributions can be seen here (NSFW).

[Abd]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Welcome Sj. I did drag your name about a bit, but I also just saw your intervention on meta, you get an A for effort, though Sghezza still can't edit. Little matter of being globally IP blocked by the same steward who had locked him, just after Ajraddatz unlocked.

[EricBarbour]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Hello, Sam.

Have I ever stated that I don't like you, Sam? If you wish, I could enumerate the reasons why.

[Abd]

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.

Any non-profit board that required volunteer trustees to meet once a week would soon be an empty board.

Greg has this right. The Board is for overall oversight and gravitas, and key to a functional board is the selection of trustworthy staff, which properly boils down to choosing a trustworthy Executive Director (who then hires and fires staff).

Operational power is, then, with the ED, who distributes responsibility through the staff. So the board will review staff reports and will typically be highly dependent upon them. A Board may create an Executive Committee that can make necessary decisions ad interim, i.e., between major board meetings.

The Executive Director, if she has the trust of the Board, will be the major power center. If not, it will be a mess.

I'd be amazed if there were a need to have board meetings more than quarterly.

[SB_Johnny]

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.

Any non-profit board that required volunteer trustees to meet once a week would soon be an empty board.

Correction: Empty of any serious and successful people. I'm sure folks like Fae and Gorman and Gerard would be happy to meet by Skype once a week.

So what would you propose?

The main purpose of the Board of a nonprofit is to supervise the Executive Director and such other officers as are directly accountable to the Board (often, the Treasurer). I would argue for monthly meetings of at least the Executive Committee (which can be by teleconference) and quarterly meetings of the full Board, at least one of which each year should be in person (the rest can be by teleconference).

The WMF is actually fairly close to this currently; if anything they hold too many in-person meetings of the full Board. Since the WMF is a nonmember organization, however, I would argue for a larger Board, in order to provide for a wider range of opinion within the Board.

Unless you're arguing with Ira/NYB, it's probably better to avoid the Capital Improper Noun thing. Because they don't deserve capitalization, unless you're a lawyer or someone looking for a cushy job pretending to work on the WMF's dime.

[Vigilant]

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.

Any non-profit board that required volunteer trustees to meet once a week would soon be an empty board.

Correction: Empty of any serious and successful people. I'm sure folks like Fae and Gorman and Gerard would be happy to meet by Skype once a week.

So what would you propose?

The main purpose of the Board of a nonprofit is to supervise the Executive Director and such other officers as are directly accountable to the Board (often, the Treasurer). I would argue for monthly meetings of at least the Executive Committee (which can be by teleconference) and quarterly meetings of the full Board, at least one of which each year should be in person (the rest can be by teleconference).

The WMF is actually fairly close to this currently; if anything they hold too many in-person meetings of the full Board. Since the WMF is a nonmember organization, however, I would argue for a larger Board, in order to provide for a wider range of opinion within the Board.

Kelly has this right, mostly. The frequency of meetings is something of an inverse indicator of the maturity of the organization. Many very successful large non-profit organizations have full board meetings only 3 or 4 times per year.

There are several reasons why this is a Good Thing. First, Boards are not intended to provide day-to-day management of the organization they oversee. When they do, the organization is in failure mode. As Kelly notes, the Board hires a President, CEO, Executive Director, or similarly-named potentate to operate the organization on a daily basis. Ideally, they then evaluate that executive's performance on a regular basis, annually or (less optimally) bi-annually.

Boards are best when they set long-term strategic goals, hire and fire Presidents, raise money from large donors, supervise the investment of any endowment, review and approve annual plans, and conduct and review regular audits. Meddling in the management of lower-level employees, micro-managing the ED, making tactical decisions about programs, and general futzing around marks a bad board.

Boards usually should not meet too often in part because their work should usually be done in committee. Most boards will have standing Finance/Audit, Operations/Facilities, Investment, Governance, and Development committees, which typically meet more frequently than the full Board. Often small Boards and immature organizations lack these committees. There is a limited point in having 5 distinct committees when there are only 9 Trustees.

Each of the Committees and the full Board are usually only as good as their Chair, or whomever sets the agenda and ushers the Board through it. From the minutes prior to February 2013, the WMF Board appears to have been almost wholly ceremonial (or perhaps just really, really bad at taking minutes). Subsequently, it appears that the concerns itself only rarely with strategic matters, but it is hard to tell, given the opacity of the minutes.

Given what we know of the internals of the WMF, how often should the board be meeting for this organization?

Should the board have taken a more hands on approach given the development and deployment catastrophe of VisualEditor?

[Vigilant]

I'd have the board meet by Skype once a week.

Any non-profit board that required volunteer trustees to meet once a week would soon be an empty board.

Greg has this right. The Board is for overall oversight and gravitas, and key to a functional board is the selection of trustworthy staff, which properly boils down to choosing a trustworthy Executive Director (who then hires and fires staff).

Operational power is, then, with the ED, who distributes responsibility through the staff. So the board will review staff reports and will typically be highly dependent upon them. A Board may create an Executive Committee that can make necessary decisions ad interim, i.e., between major board meetings.

The Executive Director, if she has the trust of the Board, will be the major power center. If not, it will be a mess.

I'd be amazed if there were a need to have board meetings more than quarterly.

Given the way the WMF, especially engineering, has repeatedly failed at everything except fundraising, how much should the board have intervened?

[Kelly Martin]

Should the board have taken a more hands on approach given the development and deployment catastrophe of VisualEditor?

If the board is unsatisfied with how the executive director is managing the organization, the board's remedy is to direct the ED to replace individuals the board believes are problematic, or to take other steps to improve results, on pain of termination. It is a failure if the board starts directly managing the organization by sidestepping the ED. If the ED is failing to execute assigned tasks (or see to it that they are competently executed), it's the ED that the board takes it out on.

In the case of the WMF, the failure was in not giving measurable goals to the ED such that the board could evaluate the ED's performance.

[Poetlister]

I don't like this sort of shot either, but tarantino is usually tongue-in-cheek. This is the type of post I sometimes strangle quietly in the dark of night, though.

Y'all did notice the word "velociraptor" on his t-shirt, right? I mean, the lizard reference wasn't just a random insult, now was it.

[pedant]A velociraptor wasn't a lizard, despite the etymology of dinosaur.[/pedant]

OP said "reptilian"... jus' sayin'

I was replying to Midsize.

[Randy from Boise]

The main purpose of the Board of a nonprofit is to supervise the Executive Director and such other officers as are directly accountable to the Board (often, the Treasurer). I would argue for monthly meetings of at least the Executive Committee (which can be by teleconference) and quarterly meetings of the full Board, at least one of which each year should be in person (the rest can be by teleconference).

The WMF is actually fairly close to this currently; if anything they hold too many in-person meetings of the full Board. Since the WMF is a nonmember organization, however, I would argue for a larger Board, in order to provide for a wider range of opinion within the Board.

Kelly has this right, mostly. The frequency of meetings is something of an inverse indicator of the maturity of the organization. Many very successful large non-profit organizations have full board meetings only 3 or 4 times per year.

There are several reasons why this is a Good Thing. First, Boards are not intended to provide day-to-day management of the organization they oversee. When they do, the organization is in failure mode. As Kelly notes, the Board hires a President, CEO, Executive Director, or similarly-named potentate to operate the organization on a daily basis. Ideally, they then evaluate that executive's performance on a regular basis, annually or (less optimally) bi-annually.

Boards are best when they set long-term strategic goals, hire and fire Presidents, raise money from large donors, supervise the investment of any endowment, review and approve annual plans, and conduct and review regular audits. Meddling in the management of lower-level employees, micro-managing the ED, making tactical decisions about programs, and general futzing around marks a bad board.

Boards usually should not meet too often in part because their work should usually be done in committee. Most boards will have standing Finance/Audit, Operations/Facilities, Investment, Governance, and Development committees, which typically meet more frequently than the full Board. Often small Boards and immature organizations lack these committees. There is a limited point in having 5 distinct committees when there are only 9 Trustees.

Each of the Committees and the full Board are usually only as good as their Chair, or whomever sets the agenda and ushers the Board through it. From the minutes prior to February 2013, the WMF Board appears to have been almost wholly ceremonial (or perhaps just really, really bad at taking minutes). Subsequently, it appears that the concerns itself only rarely with strategic matters, but it is hard to tell, given the opacity of the minutes.

This strikes me as very much on the mark. A Board hires the key staffers, sets the broad agenda, and steps back... Their actual supervisory capacity is minimal.

RfB

[Kumioko]

If I might interject something a bit contrarian here, I personally suspect that the reason for the seemingly-unnecessary face-to-face meetings is that the board members are mostly long-term Wikipedians, and as such they're conditioned by the years of endless online bickering and scheming to have pretty much zero trust or confidence in their colleagues, at least when they're encountered via a computer. In person, most of them are probably fairly nice, reasonable people, who wouldn't dream of plotting against each other or stabbing each other in the back for no good reason, at least if they're all physically present in the same room.

The real point to be made here, at least as I see it, is that these are people who fully understand the realities of internet-based social interaction, to the point where they actually spend enormous amounts of donor money to avoid it in conducting their own business. A business that just happens to involve running the one website that most readily epitomizes the problem with internet-based social interaction.

My sense is that this is not right. These are the "go along to get along" types, who believe in collaboration and the notion of Assuming Good Faith and see their wiki world as a mostly happy place marred by "trolls"...

This structure of a board with formal authority but actual authority in a professional staff, which then leads the nominal decision-makers by the nose, is extremely common. It takes a big "situation" for a board like that to intervene in the day-to-day workings of the organization.

The implication here is that Ms. Tretikov is in an extremely powerful position if she can forge alliances and gain the trust of the Board. In a fairly short period of time she should emerge as the chief decision-maker in the organization and the one best able to cause it to shift directions — although it is a lot like steering a big ship, a turn of the wheel takes a little while to change the vessel's course.

The Board, I am already convinced, is neither the cause of the problem nor the solution to it. They are probably, individually and collectively, good and well-meaning people. They are also not fitted, it seems to me, to create change in San Francisco. The Executive Director in the National Office is the real center of power, not the quarterly get-togethers of the National Executive Committee. Whoops, that's the Socialist Party, 1920.

RfB

You would be wrong, I have personally met a good number of the board members over the years and the vast majority of them are all go along get along types. There have been some exceptions but usually not until after they became board members. For the most part, they wouldn't get elected in the first place if they bucked the system. They are very cunning and calculating and for the most part they have eyes on being a member of the board long in advance.

I do agree that the board is not the cause or cure for the problem. Frankly, they don't do much other than sit around and discuss the state of the union. I also agree they are not likely to foster change, since most of them got to where they are by using the system to their advantage.

[eagle]

Since the WMF is a nonmember organization, however, I would argue for a larger Board, in order to provide for a wider range of opinion within the Board.

There is a limited point in having 5 distinct committees when there are only 9 Trustees.

Again, please see my comment above, where I proposed expanding the Board to 17 members: 6 community-elected, 4 chapter-elected, and 7 board appointed.

[Midsize Jake]

You would be wrong, I have personally met a good number of the board members over the years and the vast majority of them are all go along get along types. There have been some exceptions but usually not until after they became board members. For the most part, they wouldn't get elected in the first place if they bucked the system. They are very cunning and calculating and for the most part they have eyes on being a member of the board long in advance.

Just to be clear about what I wrote originally, I don't personally see how being "go along get along" and having zero personal trust in other Wikipedians while interacting online are mutually exclusive for these folks. The former is basically a strategy, the latter is more of a feeling or perhaps a general outlook on things. In other words, having zero trust in other Wikipedians while interacting online with them might cause any given Wikipedian to either be as non-confrontational as possible, or be so nasty, vituperative and argumentative that they end up getting banned in less than a week after registration. That part just depends on the person, but the lack of trust strikes me as far more pervasive, if not universal.

So my point is only that it seems, to me, that most of these folks do not hold much trust in their colleagues - at least not until they meet them in person and have a chance to develop real human relationships with them, however formal or businesslike those relationships may be.

[Randy from Boise]

Since the WMF is a nonmember organization, however, I would argue for a larger Board, in order to provide for a wider range of opinion within the Board.

There is a limited point in having 5 distinct committees when there are only 9 Trustees.

Again, please see my comment above, where I proposed expanding the Board to 17 members: 6 community-elected, 4 chapter-elected, and 7 board appointed.

In radical politics, expanding the size of the central committee means growth in the role and power of the executive committee. If that doesn't exist currently, it soon would — unless the Board is nothing but a ceremonial rubberstamp body, which it may be.

Larger size might also water down influence of any one individual, reducing the chance that one or two reformers might have to make a difference...

RfB

[Anroth]

Give me a budget of 100-200k a year, enough seniority second to Lila's, and I will be happy to SOFIXIT.

Give me another 200k and I could probably fix VE too...

(£s of course)

[eagle]

Since the WMF is a nonmember organization, however, I would argue for a larger Board, in order to provide for a wider range of opinion within the Board.

There is a limited point in having 5 distinct committees when there are only 9 Trustees.

Again, please see my comment above, where I proposed expanding the Board to 17 members: 6 community-elected, 4 chapter-elected, and 7 board appointed.

In radical politics, expanding the size of the central committee means growth in the role and power of the executive committee. If that doesn't exist currently, it soon would — unless the Board is nothing but a ceremonial rubberstamp body, which it may be.

Larger size might also water down influence of any one individual, reducing the chance that one or two reformers might have to make a difference...

RfB

Yes. But the one seat that would be eliminated under any reasonable Board reform plan would be that of the co-founder.

[Randy from Boise]

Yes. But the one seat that would be eliminated under any reasonable Board reform plan would be that of the co-founder.

Oh, no no no no. The Board is all about budgets and fundraising and Jimmy Wales is the golden goose of WP fundraising. They wheel him out for a couple weeks during the donation campaign and the money rolls in...

He is also the official face of the franchise — and he does a good job of it.

You don't kick Col. Sanders to the curb if you're KFC.

RfB

[eagle]

The new "chapter" or "affiliate" trustees were announced this summer, link.

Frieda Brioschi from Italy and Patricio Lorente from Argentina will start their new terms from the first board meeting after 1 July. The board has determined that for the first time since this system began in 2008, not only chapters but thematic organisations should vote for whom to recommend to the board. This change did not include user groups, of which there are an increasing number. A resolution of the chapters and the one thematic organisation was passed in March, governing the conduct of the 2014 election.

Since most of the chapters were outside the US, these seats had become the way for non-US trustees to be elected. Now that we are broadening the electorate for these seats to include "thematic organisations", US-based insider folks like Peter Forsyth will gain a larger role in selecting these seats.

Remarkably, only 27 of the 41 eligible affiliates voted.

[greybeard]

Maybe Wikipediocracy can qualify as a "thematic group"?

[Randy from Boise]

Maybe Wikipediocracy can qualify as a "thematic group"?

I was just thinking that.

tim

[eagle]

Maybe Wikipediocracy can qualify as a "thematic group"?

I was just thinking that.

tim

Currently there is only one "approved" thematic group: Amical Wikimedia for the Catalan language. There are also "User Groups" like the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium (which has more paid editors as members than Wikipediocracy.)

[Triptych]

Yes. But the one seat that would be eliminated under any reasonable Board reform plan would be that of the co-founder.

Oh, no no no no. The Board is all about budgets and fundraising and Jimmy Wales is the golden goose of WP fundraising. They wheel him out for a couple weeks during the donation campaign and the money rolls in...

He is also the official face of the franchise — and he does a good job of it.

You don't kick Col. Sanders to the curb if you're KFC.

Yeah, you humiliate his memory by making him an hip-hop ballering cartoon mascot:

[Randy from Boise]

Yes. But the one seat that would be eliminated under any reasonable Board reform plan would be that of the co-founder.

Oh, no no no no. The Board is all about budgets and fundraising and Jimmy Wales is the golden goose of WP fundraising. They wheel him out for a couple weeks during the donation campaign and the money rolls in...

He is also the official face of the franchise — and he does a good job of it.

You don't kick Col. Sanders to the curb if you're KFC.

Yeah, you humiliate his memory by making him an hip-hop ballering cartoon mascot:

Just wait until you see WMF's fundraising ads after Jimmy Wales kicks off in 30 years...

RfB

[eagle]

He is also the official face of the franchise — and he does a good job of it.

You don't kick Col. Sanders to the curb if you're KFC.

Yeah, you humiliate his memory by making him an hip-hop ballering cartoon mascot:

Just wait until you see WMF's fundraising ads after Jimmy Wales kicks off in 30 years...

RfB

There is an interesting analogy here. With KFC, we have an icon of white supremacist culture being used to sell chicken to a predominantly African-American customer base (now by using a cartoon character that acts like a slam-dunking African-American basketball star.) With WMF, we have an unshaven, anti-intellectual, internet porn entrepreneur being used to sell free open source culture and crowd-sourced knowledge to a large base of volunteer amateur encyclopedia writers. (Perhaps his cartoon character will be an improverished Mister Peabody (T-H-L) character operating a Way-Back-Machine.) Only time will tell.

[wllm]

If the board is unsatisfied with how the executive director is managing the organization, the board's remedy is to direct the ED to replace individuals the board believes are problematic, or to take other steps to improve results, on pain of termination. It is a failure if the board starts directly managing the organization by sidestepping the ED. If the ED is failing to execute assigned tasks (or see to it that they are competently executed), it's the ED that the board takes it out on.

In the case of the WMF, the failure was in not giving measurable goals to the ED such that the board could evaluate the ED's performance.

Hmmm. I wonder if they've directed the ED to replace me yet.

[wllm]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Zoloft, is there any reason to announce that someone notable has signed up? I can think of several reasons not to.

[SB_Johnny]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Zoloft, is there any reason to announce that someone notable has signed up? I can think of several reasons not to.

Yes, the reason is because that's the sort of thing our forum members would like to get a heads-up about.

Please list your several reasons.

[Bielle]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Zoloft, is there any reason to announce that someone notable has signed up? I can think of several reasons not to.

When they are obvious, as in using their WP name, there is no harm they haven't already done themselves.

[tarantino]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Zoloft, is there any reason to announce that someone notable has signed up? I can think of several reasons not to.

When they are obvious, as in using their WP name, there is no harm they haven't already done themselves.

See also the list of members, sorted by joined date.

[wllm]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Zoloft, is there any reason to announce that someone notable has signed up? I can think of several reasons not to.

Yes, the reason is because that's the sort of thing our forum members would like to get a heads-up about.

Please list your several reasons.

1) This could intimidate the new member from speaking up, since others turn to talk about them almost immediately.
2) It is a form of outing that discourages people from signing up to Wikiopediocracy in the first place.
3) It promotes people to remain anonymous on Wikipediocracy, which makes it harder to know who's who for the people who're still working on-wiki.
4) It probably makes those signing up concerned that other information about them will be as readily discussed as their signing up for an account.
5) Someone reading the thread without stuff like the twitter conversation will think we do this for everyone.
6) Why do you need a heads up? You'll know when they post something that they've signed up. It's a waste of someone's time in posting in.
7) The 2 times I've seen it happen, the user didn't post anything and we kinda looked like tools.
8) It just isn't cool.

[greybeard]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Zoloft, is there any reason to announce that someone notable has signed up? I can think of several reasons not to.

Yes, the reason is because that's the sort of thing our forum members would like to get a heads-up about.

Please list your several reasons.

1) This could intimidate the new member from speaking up, since others turn to talk about them almost immediately.
2) It is a form of outing that discourages people from signing up to Wikiopediocracy in the first place.
3) It promotes people to remain anonymous on Wikipediocracy, which makes it harder to know who's who for the people who're still working on-wiki.
4) It probably makes those signing up concerned that other information about them will be as readily discussed as their signing up for an account.
5) Someone reading the thread without stuff like the twitter conversation will think we do this for everyone.
6) Why do you need a heads up? You'll know when they post something that they've signed up. It's a waste of someone's time in posting in.
7) The 2 times I've seen it happen, the user didn't post anything and we kinda looked like tools.
8) It just isn't cool.

Willm, your reasons don't really parse. Our membership list is open here, and we don't allow impersonation. If "sj'" had signed up with a different name, even if we'd known it, it wouldn't have been revealed. As it is, the WMF Board member signed up with his well-known pseudonym, asking for and receiving no anonymity.

[Zoloft]

It's only done if there is a discussion about a person, and I want to welcome them into the discussion, and their identity is openly disclosed in their username or in the provided alternative fields (such as: Wikipedia User, Wikipedia Review Member, Actual Name).

It's not meant to intimidate.

Sometimes people don't want to post, but just read.

No one has ever PMed me or reported the post or emailed me to complain about the practice.

I will add a further step of emailing them with a link to the topic and a short welcoming message to clarify my motives from now on.

[Zoloft]

7) The 2 times I've seen it happen, the user didn't post anything and we kinda looked like tools.
8) It just isn't cool.

Sometimes I am a tool. I try to be a useful one.

[Kelly Martin]

Incoming from sj at meta, he has registered as sj' (we only allow membernames of 3 to 20 characters), and I have activated that account.

Zoloft, is there any reason to announce that someone notable has signed up? I can think of several reasons not to.

The software itself announces the most recent new member at the bottom of the main screen. Really, you are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

[Kelly Martin]

Willm, your reasons don't really parse. Our membership list is open here, and we don't allow impersonation. If "sj'" had signed up with a different name, even if we'd known it, it wouldn't have been revealed. As it is, the WMF Board member signed up with his well-known pseudonym, asking for and receiving no anonymity.

Zoloft's announcement also serves as an affirmative statement that he has confirmed the identity of the individual, because (as greybeard mentions), we don't allow impersonation here.

[Midsize Jake]

Sometimes I am a tool. I try to be a useful one.

If one of the Wikipedia high-mucky-mucks registers here, particularly in the middle of a thread that's at last partially about the high-mucky-muck, that in itself usually changes peoples' opinions of the high-mucky-muck. And usually it's for the better, since it suggests that the person might be willing to actually engage with critics and at least entertain the notion that Wikipedia might just have a few problems here and there that are worth considering (or even discussing!) in some way.

I've never really bought into the notion that announcing such registrations is necessarily intimidating, but I can certainly see how it could be in some instances.

IMO, the solution to this might actually be relatively simple - we just need a checkbox on the registration page that says, "Check here if you are a Wikipedia administrator or Wikimedia functionary and you would prefer not to have your registration announced in a discussion thread by the person who approves your registration." It's a bit of extra work for Mr. Z, so I'm only putting it out there as a "potential suggested solution/idea," but that should overcome most of the immediate objections...? I suppose the rest of us might bookmark the new-registrants list and check it every few minutes, making all of that extra effort for naught, but of course I didn't say it was a perfect solution, did I.

[Midsize Jake]

The software itself announces the most recent new member at the bottom of the main screen. Really, you are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

True about the main screen, but not all of us bookmark (and therefore routinely land on) the main screen - I know that several of us, including myself, go straight to "New posts," "View active topics," or "View unread posts." Besides, only the most recent new registrant is on the main screen, so if Mr. Z approves two or more in one go, the others won't appear there, only the last one on the list.

As for the molehill thing, that is also true. But we're dealing with Wikipedians here, unfortunately.

[Capsot]

Hello everyone,
My name is Claudi Balaguer, user Capsot, active mainly, currently, on the Occitan wikipedia, though I am one of the few users who uses to cross the bridges between the wikipedias. First of all, I would like to apologize for my English, which might contain a few mistakes from time to time; though I consider I have some kind of fair command I am not a native speaker, so please don't be too harsh on me...

Some of you "know" me (at least partially), since I ran for the elections of the Board members a few years ago, and I think some of you even said I was "nuts" because I said I was banned (I don't hold any grudges, I just happened to see the thing some time ago when my interest to Wikipediocracy began to grow to its current extent). I did not intervene and I didn't mean to write until I was sufficiently acquainted with most of the things written here and the very diverse "wildlife" and so far, in spite of some crude things said from time to time, I must confess your site is really interesting and enlightening both intellectually and linguistically. On one hand it makes me feel that my English skills are really poor... but on the other hand it helps me learn new vocabulary and writing style, which is good. I have to tell you that I really appreciate Abd peaceful and savvy way, Greg's or Eric's inquisitiveness and Wil's positiveness and optimistic views. Sorry about the others I wish I could tell more nice things but there is so much I need to read and I don't want the Wikipedia things to become an obsession (I'm afraid it already is to some extent) since with my stubborn temper I hate feeling that I could depend on one thing (though I am sure I depend too heavily on many of them). I guess I will get to know you more gradually.

I decided to write because I felt a bit guilty... not really spying on every piece of information but rather trying to get a better insight of the main topics and the people involved. I don't think Wil's apprehension is right. I mean... once you become a "known" user, you imply that you have decided that you will post something some time; it's true however that if some people write negative things about you before you intervene, then you won't probably say anything and just keep on observing.

My "outsider" position might be of some interest to you and somehow complementary since you all mainly come from the English wikipedia and focus on its issues and/or dysfunctions while I know only a few of them. My, way too limited, experience and interest rest mostly on what's going on with Chapters and the board, that is the higher Wikimedia institutions, where I think disfunction is commonplace and a chronic disease.

Feel free to ask me more if you want to, especially about my "troubled past" that has led me to a global ban and then a limited one on Meta.

I mainly wanted to introduce myself since I "enrolled" at about the same time as Sj (I think you are being too hard on him, he is one of the few members of the Board who tries to do something... aside from velociraptors, he has got decent qualities too) and I think I will post some threads later on about the Chapters or Wikimania and its scholarships.
Take care, wish you all a nice weekend, de còr e d'òc,
Claudi

[Capsot]

Sorry Kiefer, I had forgotten you! Slava Ukraini!

[Zoloft]

Thank you for your kind words.

I'm sure we can learn from your experience as well.

It's good to have you here.

[Vigilant]

I think Capsot's stuff should go into its own thread.

[Randy from Boise]

Benvingut al Saloon, Claudi!

RfB

[thekohser]

...experience and interest rest mostly on what's going on with Chapters and the board, that is the higher Wikimedia institutions, where I think disfunction is commonplace and a chronic disease.

I've seen enough -- welcome to Claudi!

[Kelly Martin]

My "outsider" position might be of some interest to you and somehow complementary since you all mainly come from the English wikipedia and focus on its issues and/or dysfunctions while I know only a few of them. My, way too limited, experience and interest rest mostly on what's going on with Chapters and the board, that is the higher Wikimedia institutions, where I think disfunction is commonplace and a chronic disease.

Welcome to Wikipediocracy, Claudi. I know I look forward to your insights, especially in the areas you highlight above, as these are definitely areas about which we know less than we really should.