When you finally wake up and realize that the coup happened yesterday

[Vigilant]

Someone's been reading. That's bad for the WMF.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken about any of this. In Article IV, Section 3(C), the Bylaws currently say The Board will approve candidates who receive the most votes and the proposal is to change that to The Board will appoint candidates who are nominated through this process (among other changes) [1]. In both versions, the language is followed by subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and included in the proposed changes is the addition of ... as determined by the Board to the end of 3(A). Contrary to what is written above, these changes seem to me to be particular changes to the community trustee selection process, from a process that requires the Board to approve candidates who receive the most votes, to one that requires the Board to appoint candidates that the Board determines to have "a diverse set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation", from among a slate of candidates vetted by the community. This grants the Board final approval authority over the selection of new trustees. I'm a bit surprised to see the trustees delay elections, over-stay their term, and then propose Bylaws changes that would substantially increase the size of the Board and give the sitting trustees final approval over the appointment of new trustees. I can't be the only one who believes that trustees who are sitting past the expiration of their terms should not be voting on anything except on when to hold elections. There shouldn't be any changes to the bylaws before trustee elections are held, and if there are any changes, certainly they should not be to the elections procedures themselves, and if there are to be changes to the election procedures before the elections, certainly the change shouldn't be to take final approval away from the community and give it to the sitting trustees. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

[AngelOne]

Over in the Fram thread, I saw this and it got me thinking...

Why didn't Maria Sefidari Huici get kicked to the curb by the WMF when it was clear that she was entirely involved in running interference for her undisclosed wife, Laura Hale, during the run up to FRAMGate?

Could it be because she is in charge of the WMF?

It's an interesting question. I recall that Maria lost her seat on the board when she was beaten out by Doc James in an election. And then after Doc was kicked to the curb, she regained her seat via appointment by the other board members.
...

I was going to reply over in the other thread but the part I started thinking about is the proposed Trustee rubric so I brought it here.

I wonder how much of the proposed rubric has been determined by that situation? James was kicked off and then re-elected and the current rules say the Board has to appoint him (maybe they don't actually say that, but that is the expectation and historical practice). There was no easy way for the Board to not appoint James at the time but this new rubric provides that easy way.

That same new rubric gives the Board justification for having appointed Maria after having kicked James out. It would also provide justification for the Board to have chosen Maria over him in the first place, since she ticks a number of those boxes in the Diversity: Background section that he does not.

Diversity is good, and I think James should not have run to be a Trustee the second time, but bending the system to benefit one's grifter of a wife is not good.

Does the Board do any kind of background check on proposed Trustees?

[Midsize Jake]

Does the Board do any kind of background check on proposed Trustees?

I don't see how they could, because at least until now they've all been Wikipedians, and for a Wikipedian, any kind of background check would automatically be considered "harassment."

[Poetlister]

Does the Board do any kind of background check on proposed Trustees?

I don't see how they could, because at least until now they've all been Wikipedians, and for a Wikipedian, any kind of background check would automatically be considered "harassment."

Any checking would need to be crowdsourced, with everything supported by reliable sources. That would be tricky.

[Vigilant]

Does the Board do any kind of background check on proposed Trustees?

I don't see how they could, because at least until now they've all been Wikipedians, and for a Wikipedian, any kind of background check would automatically be considered "harassment."

Unless, of course, they do the wrong kind of paid editing, in which case they should have their home addresses and phone numbers published.

[Vigilant]

Over in the Fram thread, I saw this and it got me thinking...

Why didn't Maria Sefidari Huici get kicked to the curb by the WMF when it was clear that she was entirely involved in running interference for her undisclosed wife, Laura Hale, during the run up to FRAMGate?

Could it be because she is in charge of the WMF?

It's an interesting question. I recall that Maria lost her seat on the board when she was beaten out by Doc James in an election. And then after Doc was kicked to the curb, she regained her seat via appointment by the other board members.
...

I was going to reply over in the other thread but the part I started thinking about is the proposed Trustee rubric so I brought it here.

I wonder how much of the proposed rubric has been determined by that situation? James was kicked off and then re-elected and the current rules say the Board has to appoint him (maybe they don't actually say that, but that is the expectation and historical practice). There was no easy way for the Board to not appoint James at the time but this new rubric provides that easy way.

That same new rubric gives the Board justification for having appointed Maria after having kicked James out. It would also provide justification for the Board to have chosen Maria over him in the first place, since she ticks a number of those boxes in the Diversity: Background section that he does not.

Diversity is good, and I think James should not have run to be a Trustee the second time, but bending the system to benefit one's grifter of a wife is not good.

Does the Board do any kind of background check on proposed Trustees?

Which begs the question, "How did she end up as chair?"

She didn't win the trustee election.
She got fewer votes than every other trustee.

She got appointed to the board after FAILING to get elected and then was given the chair.

Why?

[Bezdomni]

She [...] was given the chair.

What en.wp needs is a Senate, so they can have confirmation hearings.

That should please Jimmy, who suggested an electoral college the other day...

[Vigilant]

She [...] was given the chair.

What en.wp needs is a Senate, so they can have confirmation hearings.

That should please Jimmy, who suggested an electoral college the other day...

Smallbones can play Berzelius Windrip.

[Zoloft]

She [...] was given the chair.

What en.wp needs is a Senate, so they can have confirmation hearings.

That should please Jimmy, who suggested an electoral college the other day...

Smallbones can play Berzelius Windrip.

     

[Poetlister]

link for those less well informed about early 20th century American literature. Note however that Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip was a Democrat.

[Vigilant]

The WMF board shakes their shiny keys and hopes the hoi polloi will be mollified.

Q1: If you have this much time to propose these changes to the bylaws, why aren't you holding elections?

Q2: Why don't we have the postponed elections and let the next board decide if these changes are necessary or desirable?

Q3: Do you realize just how corrupt and self-dealing this process looks?

[Vigilant]

Some are starting to wake up.

If Our Ideas Were Actually Welcomed

Then no such reply would ever contain the phrase "the final process may feature voting." Any discussion is completely dead and these are nothing but diktats from on high so long as the board sticks to this reprehensible path. Based on the conduct so far, I think that 0 appointed board members would be the optimal distribution. You are not the movement. You are not the community. You are hijacking something that you did not dream, that you did not build, that you do not personally fund. You. Are. Thieves. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

[Midsize Jake]

Honestly, the word "thieves" seems a bit harsh there, but I guess he'd already used "hijacking" in the previous sentence.

[Vigilant]

Honestly, the word "thieves" seems a bit harsh there, but I guess he'd already used "hijacking" in the previous sentence.

Parasites.

In partricular, Kleptoparasitism (T-H-L) or perhaps Brood_parasite (T-H-L).

The WMF board is a bunch of Brown-headed_cowbird (T-H-L)s.

[Poetlister]

I have received the following e-mail. It is presumably on a mailing list somewhere.

Update after the first feedback round

In response to comments from community members, the Board Governance
Committee has agreed to incorporate the following suggestions
immediately:[1][2]

1. *Replace the definition and repeated use in the Bylaws of ?Chapters,
Thematic Organizations, and User Groups? with ?Affiliates?.* This is
meant to make the language simpler, as well as not require a modification
to the Bylaws if movement affiliate models change.
2. *Clarify when the CEO is and can be excluded from executive
sessions.* This
further explains the current standard practice.
3. *Change the name ?rubric? to ?evaluation form?.* This addresses
issues of confusion and difficulty of translation related to the term
?rubric?.

In the next committee meeting on November 17, we plan to continue
discussing the following proposals:

- *Address concerns about the possibility of having a minority of
community-sourced seats compared to Board-selected seats.* Our intention
has always been to maintain the current structure of having a governing
majority of community-sourced trustees, and the Bylaws should reflect that.
Commenters have pointed out that the current draft of the revisions would
allow, in an extreme case, for there to be a 9-member Board with 7
Board-selected trustees, 1 Founder, and only 1 community-sourced trustee.
We will edit the draft to ensure that is not a possibility.


- *Clarify what it means to have a ?community nomination process?.* Many
commenters have expressed concern that the proposed Bylaws language would
allow the Board to select community members to appoint to the
community-sourced seats without a community voting process. Specifically,
concerns have been raised about whether there will be a community vote on
nominated trustees.

The Board?s priority for the revised community nomination process is for a
process that enables diverse and equitable representation from communities
across the Wikimedia movement, in keeping with the goals and values of our
movement and strategic direction. The final process may feature voting; it
may integrate other means of community representative selection -- we are
looking at various models from communities and cultures around the world.At
the end of the day, we are committed to having a trustee selection process
that gives meaningful voice to the Wikimedia communities. For the purpose
of this effort, we will consider how to ensure that 1) the Bylaws confirms
the principle of community governance; 2) the selection process delivers
the diverse and strategic movement leadership required for the future of
our movement; 3) the selection mechanisms ensure appropriate community
input and agency in keeping with our culture and values.

- *Increase the amount of time it takes for the trustee term limits to
reset.* This addresses the concern that the current period of time, 18
months, is fairly short compared to the term limit of 9 years.


- *Remove or change the structure of the Founder seat.* This seat is
unique in that it is reserved for one person (Jimmy Wales), and it is not
subject to term limits. Commenters have suggested eliminating this seat,
converting it into a different type of seat, or converting it into a
different, non-trustee role.


- *Adjust the approach to community discussion for these governance
changes.* In addition to further refining these Bylaws changes, we are
hoping to launch the discussion of community-sourced trustee selection
pathways in early 2021. We have heard the requests to have longer
discussion periods and to have multiple rounds of discussions. We will take
these requests into consideration as we plan our timeline of next steps.
The Board expansion is meant, in part, to provide additional Trustee
capacity to engage directly with Communities in such discussions, and we
look forward to creating the conditions where this exchange can take place
more frequently.

We will post another update following our November 17 meeting.

In the meantime, we will update the documentation to reflect the current
status and to explain the process through which we expect to discuss and
make decisions on the topics above. This will include the conversation
about selection pathways. We are also thinking how to organize these
conversations in ways that make them enjoyable, open to nuance and
collaboration, and accessible across the diversity of our movement.

Moderator's note: You're too late! That material was copied to this Meta page (Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2020 - Call for feedback about Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric) by User:Pundit (T-C-L), and already linked to earlier in this post. (Doesn't look like there are any discrepancies.)

[Vigilant]

Things have ground to a halt.

Will this go the way of global renaming?
Will the WeMakeFailures board thrust it deeper into the inflamed sphincter of Teh Comunitah?
What is the board doing that makes it impossible to have the previously scheduled elections until the 'Next Wikimania'?

[Vigilant]

Well, looks like the WeMakeFailures board is now the FuckYourFeelings crowd.

Here's an update on how you're going to get fucked with your pants on, wikipediots.

Update after the Board Governance Committee meeting on Nov 17

The Board Governance Committee met last week and wanted to update you on where we are.

We are committed to completing the selection process for the three seats that were postponed by June 30, 2021, so that the trustees can be appointed at the Board’s July/August 2021 meeting. We also hope to fill the three additional seats contemplated in the proposed Bylaws revisions as well, but only after due consideration of the best processes for doing so. We plan to discuss these improvements with you during January - February (dates to be confirmed) in order to start the nomination process around March - April. We recognize that discussing and designing this new process might take longer, and while we hope to make the June 30th goal, we are open to consider the possibility of selecting these three additional trustees at a later date, if June 30 is not possible.

As part of those discussions we open in January, we want to be very clear about how the governance of the Wikimedia Foundation works, the role of the Board, and how it functions. We will come in prepared to discuss in more depth the biggest problems we have identified with the current situation, particularly that:

We need more Board members. The current members of the Board are stretched thin working for a movement whose size and complexity have grown since our current Board structure was put in place over a decade ago, and we need additional capacity if we are to steer effectively.[1] More Board members will allow task specialization, which might help us respond more rapidly to our sometimes rapidly evolving situations.
Our goal is to find candidates with the skills the Board needs to perform well. Currently candidates are not assessed based on skills that may serve an international organisation of the size and complexity of the Foundation.
We perennially experience a lack of diversity in candidates. We want to be sure that our processes are equitable across our movement and result in a Board that reflects our commitments to diversity (in the Bylaws, in the movement strategy, and elsewhere).
The feedback received about the Bylaws revisions and related discussions shows that there are very different opinions. We need to be on the same page on these important points in order to work together towards building solutions.

We hope to have more information after the December 9 Board meeting to share about timelines and plans.

[1] The Board has had 10 members since 2010, at a time when the Foundation had 80 employees, an annual budget of less than $18 million, and around 25 affiliates. All of those numbers are now over five times larger.

On behalf of the Board Governance Committee, Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

blah, blah, blah BULL. SHIT.

Hold the 'postponed' elections now.
Seat the new board under the bylaws that exist now.
Let the new board take up the bylaws changes if they so choose.

The terms for the old board members have expired.

[Zoloft]

In June or July of 2021, Laura Hale will be appointed to the Board.

[Midsize Jake]

We need more Board members. The current members of the Board are stretched thin working for a movement whose size and complexity have grown since our current Board structure was put in place over a decade ago, and we need additional capacity if we are to steer effectively.[1] More Board members will allow task specialization, which might help us respond more rapidly to our sometimes rapidly evolving situations.

Is he saying they want to use the additional board members in lieu of executives and other high-level management personnel who would normally be expected to manage various aspects of the "movement," presumably because they don't like or trust the executives (and other high-level management personnel) they have now? I guess that would save them some money at least, since AFAIK they don't pay the board members much, if anything.

Also, I don't think it follows logically that simply adding more board members will "allow task specialization" — at least not in itself. They'll have to find specialists willing to serve on the board, not the other way around... unless they want to sit through some potentially lengthy on-the-job training.

[Anroth]

One major aspect (and really its only real reason for being) is oversight and accountability. In a large (especially charitible) organisation, its fairly standard to have a particular board member have oversight/specialise in one area. Most often when you have quite different aspects of the business eg fundraising & technical. It helps to have a board member who can understand and explain that at the high level they are meant to operate at. Board members are often sought based on their particular skillset for that purpose. So I dont think its that unsual a prospect for them to headhunt. I doubt they will find it hard to get candidates.

[Poetlister]

We need more Board members. The current members of the Board are stretched thin working for a movement whose size and complexity have grown since our current Board structure was put in place over a decade ago, and we need additional capacity if we are to steer effectively.[1] More Board members will allow task specialization, which might help us respond more rapidly to our sometimes rapidly evolving situations.

Is he saying they want to use the additional board members in lieu of executives and other high-level management personnel who would normally be expected to manage various aspects of the "movement," presumably because they don't like or trust the executives (and other high-level management personnel) they have now? I guess that would save them some money at least, since AFAIK they don't pay the board members much, if anything.

Also, I don't think it follows logically that simply adding more board members will "allow task specialization" — at least not in itself. They'll have to find specialists willing to serve on the board, not the other way around... unless they want to sit through some potentially lengthy on-the-job training.

Executives are (if the appointment process is done at all competently, which of course may be a false assumption) experts at what they are supposed to be doing. As such, they run counter to the usual way of doing things on Wikipedia. Things need to be done by the community , because crowdsourcing is sure to produce a better result. As Mr Midsize says, it's also cheaper.

[Vigilant]

Since the WMF is perfectly capable of having a 'discussion' during COVID about changing the Bylaws, has their rationale for 'postponing' the board elections ever been rationally articulated?

[Poetlister]

Since the WMF is perfectly capable of having a 'discussion' during COVID about changing the Bylaws, has their rationale for 'postponing' the board elections ever been rationally articulated?

Who would expect it to be? We're talking about the WMF, after all.

[No Ledge]

WMF Board considering the removal of Jimmy Wales' trustee position amid controversy over future of community elections

María Sefidari Trump is the one whom the board should be considering for removal. Her term has expired.

[Poetlister]

The Board has discussed and approved some improvements to the Board’s governance structure and processes, in two recent meetings on December 9 and January 8. As the governing body for the Wikimedia Foundation, we want to improve our capacity, performance, and representation of the movement’s diversity. We have amended the Bylaws in support of that goal.

Meta

diff.wikimedia.org

"And that, said John, is that!"

[C&B]

Are these The Bylaws that Underwent extensive trolling discussion on meta even Though Being the obvious that WMF Would anyway Just do As They Wish?!

[Vigilant]

Looks like that's a wrap

You guys will never get Maria Sefidari Huici out of the WMF board now.
You will never have ANY control over the board, moving forward.

[Vigilant]

From the diff

''These bylaws were last <span class="plainlinks"> [//wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws&action=history updated] </span> with the changes approved by the board on [[Resolution:Amended Bylaws Articles IV & V (2020)|December 9, 2020]]. ''

They did this months ago and, for some inexplicable reason, decided to wait a month and a half to tell everyone.

Trustees, excluding the Community Founder Trustee Position, may serve a maximum of three consecutive full terms (that is, nine years). After having served any consecutive nine years, a Trustee shall not be eligible for appointment to the Board again until a period of at least 18 months has expired.

NINE years on, 18 months off.
That seems a BIT long.
Welcome the perpetual, eternal board.

:(i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, as determined by the Board. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of its work.

:(ii) The Board and its Trustees must act as fiduciaries with regard to the Foundation, and their duties include, but are not limited to, the fiduciary duty of care and the fiduciary duty of loyalty, as described in Sections 617.0830 and 617.0832 of the Florida Not For Profit Corporation Act (the Act). It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that the selection of Trustees furthers these governance priorities and complies with the Board’s fiduciary duties.

The board vermin will select the other board vermin. In perpetuity.
Say goodbye to elections.

Teh Communitah has been irrevocably and permanently stripped of any meaningful input into WMF Board composition.

[Vigilant]

You guys got fucked with your pants on.

[The Adversary]

I have long thought that the demise of Wikipedia (if it ever happen) will be due to .....too much money.

No, I'm not kidding.

I have seen it before: formerly poor NGOs suddenly awash with money.
What then typically happen is that some second-rate (or third-rate) persons sees the opportunity and fight -hard- for the money-bag.

I have seen it with a couple of NGOs I worked with before. What "saved" those NGOs was that the money dried up. (Thank heavens!).
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen with Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

Are these The Bylaws that Underwent extensive trolling discussion on meta even Though Being the obvious that WMF Would anyway Just do As They Wish?!

Exactly. The thing was always going to be a foregone conclusion.

[Osborne]

I have long thought that the demise of Wikipedia (if it ever happen) will be due to .....too much money.

No, I'm not kidding.

I have seen it before: formerly poor NGOs suddenly awash with money.
What then typically happen is that some second-rate (or third-rate) persons sees the opportunity and fight -hard- for the money-bag.

I have seen it with a couple of NGOs I worked with before. What "saved" those NGOs was that the money dried up. (Thank heavens!).
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen with Wikipedia.

That's a possible outcome. The WMF is mostly third-rate persons trying to grab the money-bag.
Do you see the demise happening? It seems to me the WMF is doing well now, not just financially, but like improving from full incompetence to trying hard.

[The Adversary]

I have long thought that the demise of Wikipedia (if it ever happen) will be due to .....too much money.

No, I'm not kidding.

I have seen it before: formerly poor NGOs suddenly awash with money.
What then typically happen is that some second-rate (or third-rate) persons sees the opportunity and fight -hard- for the money-bag.

I have seen it with a couple of NGOs I worked with before. What "saved" those NGOs was that the money dried up. (Thank heavens!).
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen with Wikipedia.

That's a possible outcome. The WMF is mostly third-rate persons trying to grab the money-bag.
Do you see the demise happening? It seems to me the WMF is doing well now, not just financially, but like improving from full incompetence to trying hard.

That depends.
If WMF press through with things that actually involves various wp communities, especially "the-mother-of-all", en.wp (like the Fram-ban, or the "visual Edsel"), then that will undoubtedly negatively influence the number of Wikipedians.

(Each time I log in now, I see some rather grave vandalism that the bots did not catch: fewer editors would -in the long term- inevitably mean a deterioration of the encyclopaedia)

If the WMF just continue to, basically, working for themselves, then they will survive.

That people contribute financially to Wikipedia, where most of the money goes to WMF, well, that is their problem.
WMF presently reminds me of an NGO, supposedly helping "Children with cancer" ....where 95% of the money went to the people of the organisation, while 5% actually was spend on children with cancer. Again; if people actually want to donate money to such an organisation: LOL!
(Oh, well, as they say: "A fool and his money are easily parted"!)

[Vigilant]

We tried to tell you guys.

Now it's too late...

I wonder how Jimbo voted on these bylaws changes...
Someone should ask him directly.

[Osborne]

That depends.
If WMF press through with things that actually involves various wp communities, especially "the-mother-of-all", en.wp (like the Fram-ban, or the "visual Edsel"), then that will undoubtedly negatively influence the number of Wikipedians.

(Each time I log in now, I see some rather grave vandalism that the bots did not catch: fewer editors would -in the long term- inevitably mean a deterioration of the encyclopaedia)

IMO wikipedia is oversaturated. Bluntly: the turf is divided up and each piece owned. Should there be a mass retiring, there's always fresh blood to take the helm: editors who aren't burned out yet, who might care more about the content than their own power over the content. A purge - just like a fire in nature - might revitalize the community, make it younger and more healthy.

[The Adversary]

Looks like that's a wrap

You guys will never get Maria Sefidari Huici out of the WMF board now.
You will never have ANY control over the board, moving forward.

Please don't call her that, please do her the courtesy of calling the Great Leader of WMF by her real name, María Sefidari Trump

Should there be a mass retiring, there's always fresh blood to take the helm: editors who aren't burned out yet, who might care more about the content than their own power over the content. A purge - just like a fire in nature - might revitalize the community, make it younger and more healthy.

Maybe.
Though I wouldn't put it beyond María Trump & her gang doing something seriously stupid, which will permanently damage Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

I have long thought that the demise of Wikipedia (if it ever happen) will be due to .....too much money.

No, I'm not kidding.

I have seen it before: formerly poor NGOs suddenly awash with money.
What then typically happen is that some second-rate (or third-rate) persons sees the opportunity and fight -hard- for the money-bag.

I have seen it with a couple of NGOs I worked with before. What "saved" those NGOs was that the money dried up. (Thank heavens!).
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen with Wikipedia.

That's a possible outcome. The WMF is mostly third-rate persons trying to grab the money-bag.
Do you see the demise happening? It seems to me the WMF is doing well now, not just financially, but like improving from full incompetence to trying hard.

As long as the WMF can keep the servers working, Wikipedia will keep going regardless of what is happening at the WMF. It is unlikely that they will run out of money to pay the bills for the foreseeable future.

[Zoloft]

As long as the WMF can keep the servers working, Wikipedia will keep going regardless of what is happening at the WMF. It is unlikely that they will run out of money to pay the bills for the foreseeable future.

Forseeable futures don't really exist. Ask the National Geographic, Geocities, MySpace, Enron, and Donald Trump.

[Vigilant]

Resolution:Amended Bylaws Articles IV & V (2020)

Approve

María Sefidari (Chair), Nataliia Tymkiv (Vice Chair), Esra'a Al Shafei, Tanya Capuano, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, James Heilman Dariusz Jemielniak, Lisa Lewin, Raju Narisetti, Jimmy Wales

That seems pretty clear.

Teh Communitah just got punked and Jimbo and Doc Heilman were 'all in' on it.

[Carcharoth]

Forseeable futures don't really exist. Ask the National Geographic, Geocities, MySpace, Enron, and Donald Trump.

Wait, what happened to National Geographic (T-H-L)? Circulation is down from its heyday, but those circulation figures are still impressive (maybe they have diversified a tad too much and diluted the brand, but some diversification was needed).

[C&B]

Resolution:Amended Bylaws Articles IV & V (2020)

Approve

María Sefidari (Chair), Nataliia Tymkiv (Vice Chair), Esra'a Al Shafei, Tanya Capuano, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, James Heilman Dariusz Jemielniak, Lisa Lewin, Raju Narisetti, Jimmy Wales

That seems pretty clear.

Teh Communitah just got punked and Jimbo and Doc Heilman were 'all in' on it.

He should Not be In on Anything, the Forker

[Poetlister]

From: Yair Rand

It looks like the Board ignored the feedback, and also just decided not to
tell anyone about that until a month and a half after the decision was
finalized. The bylaws changes were implemented on December 9, according to
the resolution text.

Those "loopholes" people mentioned are still there (the change from precise
numbers to "As many as" eight community/affiliate seats, and the bylaws no
longer mentioning community voting), with the addition of at least one new
one. The change from "A majority of the Board Trustee positions, without
counting the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or
appointed from the Affiliates collectively and the community." to "The
Board shall not appoint a new Board-selected trustee if it would cause the
Board-selected Trustees to outnumber the Community- and Affiliate-selected
Trustees." The differences include:

(a) Previously, having an equal number of community/affiliate and appointed
seats was not okay, community/affiliate seats had to outnumber appointed
seats. Now, the bylaws are fine with adding an appointed member even if it
brings their number up to that of the community/affiliate seats, so long as
it doesn't go past that number. (Note that "Board-selected" is a separate
category from the Founder seat.)

(b) The Board is permitted to let community/affiliate terms expire (or
remove members outright), not appoint new ones (remember, "as many as" is
now the text), and then since the appointed seats already outnumber the
community/affiliate seats, the Board is permitted to add new appointed
members anyway ("if it would _cause_ [...] to outnumber", presumably
doesn't apply if they were already outnumbered). At that point, of course,
the remaining Board could just change the bylaws to change the numbers and
make itself entirely self-perpetuating, but it wouldn't even have to.

It does not matter in the slightest how effective the Board is, if it is
not a Wikimedia Board.

I don't know what will happen now, but I think it is quite clear that, if
we make it out of this, we can no longer leave the Board in such a
precarious situation as we had with four of ten members appointed, or with
the legal model being that of self-perpetuation. The Board must be
accountable to the movement, and the Board must not
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ya ... p_proposal>
have the legal ability to take that away.

[Vigilant]

OMFG!

This is the best/worst post I've seen in a long time.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 96124.html

Hi SJ and Yair Rand,

Thanks for your feedback. I have written down your feedback and will bring
this up. You're right, we do want to have Bylaws that are as clear as
possible, but language is a difficult thing. At some point, we may have to
assume good faith.

Best,

--
*Jackie Koerner*

*she/her*
Board Governance Facilitator (English/meta)

Then why have bylaws at al?!

Contracts aren't for when things are easy.

en.wp got castrated and went down without even a whimper.

[Zoloft]

Forseeable futures don't really exist. Ask the National Geographic, Geocities, MySpace, Enron, and Donald Trump.

Wait, what happened to National Geographic (T-H-L)? Circulation is down from its heyday, but those circulation figures are still impressive (maybe they have diversified a tad too much and diluted the brand, but some diversification was needed).

National Geographic gives Fox control of media assets in $725 million deal

The Society was going broke and cashed out.

[lonza leggiera]

OMFG!

This is the best/worst post I've seen in a long time.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 96124.html

Hi SJ and Yair Rand,

Thanks for your feedback. I have written down your feedback and will bring
this up. You're right, we do want to have Bylaws that are as clear as
possible, but language is a difficult thing. At some point, we may have to
assume good faith.

Best,

--
*Jackie Koerner*

*she/her*
Board Governance Facilitator (English/meta)

Then why have bylaws at al?! …[snip]…

It's legally required by a combination of Florida's incorporated associations law and the WMF's articles of association. While the Florida law doesn't appear to require an incorporated association to have any bylaws, it does allow the articles of association to specify that various matters which must be dealt with in either the articles of association or the bylaws will in fact be dealt with in the bylaws. I'll give you one guess as to how the WMF's articles of association (written by guess whom) specify that such matters will be dealt with.

[Vigilant]

In case of non-acceptance

@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)

lol

They aren't going to back down.

Get your ass out there and pick that cotton!
They own you.

[Beeblebrox]

In case of non-acceptance

@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)

lol

They aren't going to back down.

Get your ass out there and pick that cotton!
They own you.

You have a real tendency for hyperbole. Sometimes it's amusing, but sometimes it just falls flat.

This concerns me, but really, the board has little to nothing to do with the day to day running of the websites. If they do attempt to institute excessive top-down rule, I expect they would get a reminder of the importance of volunteers the same way the office did in the Fram incident.

[C&B]

the same way the office did in the Fram incident.

You mean, the same way As teh Office were willing to hand over To the Arbcom as long As The Arbcom did Excactly what Was Expected Of it?! LOL yeah Man

[Poetlister]

@Nataliia: The change to what is now Article IV Section 3(F) is not merely
making things more specific, it is a numerically different outcome. Had
that change not been implemented, the current Board (with five
community-/affiliate-selected and four Board-selected members) would not be
allowed to appoint a fifth Board-selected member before a sixth
community-/affiliate-selected member was added. Now, the Board is permitted
to immediately add another appointed member, resulting in five of each,
ending the community majority. While doing so would violate previous
critical Board commitments, these commitments are no longer enforced by the
bylaws. The new restriction appears to only apply when the
(pre-appointment) number of community-/affiliate-selected members and
Board-selected members are exactly equal.

@SJ: I tried to put together a three-way diff between the old text, the
October proposal, and the final text at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimed ... e-way_diff
. (Turned out to be not quite as readable as I hoped, unfortunately. Also,
no summary. Still, might be helpful to some.)

-- Yair Rand

Can we get Yair Rand to come here?

[Vigilant]

In case of non-acceptance

@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)

lol

They aren't going to back down.

Get your ass out there and pick that cotton!
They own you.

You have a real tendency for hyperbole. Sometimes it's amusing, but sometimes it just falls flat.


This concerns me, but really, the board has little to nothing to do with the day to day running of the websites. If they do attempt to institute excessive top-down rule, I expect they would get a reminder of the importance of volunteers the same way the office did in the Fram incident.

Which is it this time?

Are you not seeing the Board candidate 'rubric' aka 'set asides' being put in place?
Given the Bylaws changes go through, how long do you think Maria Sefidari Huici will be in control of the Board?
How many 'long term contributors' from en.wp will ever be on the Board again?

Have you not paid attention to T&S getting their fingers in all over the place?
Have you not been watching yoUCoCk coming down the pike?
This will provide a rationale for getting rid of troublesome priests.
The next 'Fram' won't get a one year ban with a reason, they'll be globally locked by WMFOffice with 'Violated UCoC' in their block log.
As the WMF grows in size, do you think they are going to intrude more or less in 'day to day' operations?

Here's my real question, "Do you see the WMF trending towards community control or employee control of wikipedia?"