Utilisateur:(:Julien:)/Foundation

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

Sommaire

[modifier] Reorganizing the Foundation

I read this post by die sehr geehrte Delphine Ménard and it made me think about this organizational issue of the Foundation in another mindset. Ok here is how i see things:

  • 1 single entry point for Mr. CommunityMember (or someone from the so-dreaded outside world :D) to present his CoolProject, say a streamlining committee which would be the ExecComm.
  • this streamlining committee well streamlines the proposal/offer/whatever of CommunityMember, decides which committees, if any, have something to do w/ it and which don't, then sends the proposal to each of the adequate committees.
  • the various committees review the proposal and give a say on their respective domain of expertise. This advice is for example put on meta: or on the Foundation website so that the ExecComm, Mr. CommunityMember or anyone else could see how things are going.
  • when the last committee has given his advice, the ExecComm takes over and decides whether the project has to be handed over to the almighty Board or whether the ExecComm can decide on its own. If the committee decides to hand it to the Board then the Board has a bunch of expert advices to decide ASAP, else the ExecComm can give it a go and do everything that is needed to ensure the project goes to life.

(:Julien:) 30 mars 2006 à 14:43 (CEST)

Don't know If I'm allowed to post here, but I'll take the chance.

  • I agree with the single point of entry. Definitely. However, not an exec com, but rather an executive director.
  • Advisor comments can or can not be "public" depending on the nature of the deal/comment
  • Well, as I understand how an American organisation works, the Board is not to handle projects, ie. the Board is never almighty in that sense. They give broad directions for the year, they delegate authority, they only are consulted when things are out of the boundaries they have set previously, or for projects that do not fall under the scope of any committee (Wikipedia into space? - although that's probably for the sub-sub-sub super mega special projects committee). They meet four times a year maybe, smoke cigars, drink tea or mojitos if they're wild and chat about the world and where the organisation should go and if the executive director has done a good job. They issue warnings where needed, advice where needed etc. So yes to the exec com or Executive director taking charge of the project, no to the board putting their hands into it. notafish }<';> 13 avril 2006 à 14:08 (CEST)

[modifier] Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (2007)

The software said: "I voted for: Ausir (Paweł Dembowski), Frieda (Frieda Brioschi), Michael Snow, Mindspillage (Kathleen Walsh), Oscar (Oscar van Dillen)" Weeee. I must say i read almost all the discussion pages of each candidate that looked remotely competent for the 3 WMF Board positions at stake. I probably could have found 3 but i would have taken waaaaay too long for me to decide. One day i will find some time to explain my reasons. (:Julien:) 5 juillet 2007 à 19:00 (CEST)

[modifier] Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (2006)

Although there was a swath of good candidates and we could vote for several candidates, i voted for only one: Alex756.

I was looking for a candidate that had both

  1. an "international" flavor (enough to understand the Foundation is not only about the US, (you know words like chapters, Europe, Asia), and to speak some languages other than English), and
  2. a pretty good knowledge of the innards of the Foundation, the infightings and an experience on these issues.

At first i thought i would vote for Erik. When he came under attack by Jimbo and the Jimboites on Sept, 16 he responded pretty well but the same day he sent a mail to foundation-l regarding the death of Rob Levin that i felt highly inappropriate. Therefore exit Erik.

Then i thought Oscar was worse the shot at since he had language skills, was living in the Netherlands and looked like a candidate Jimbo and Anthere were keen to work with. Nevertheless his candidate statement was pretty dull and he didn't address the woes of the Foundation. Exit Oscar.

I'm going to continue to comment on most candidates. Many have had very good inputs and ideas but i felt they were not the best suitable people for the Board. Arnomane was too much community-oriented and not enough looking into the Foundation problems. Improv had some nice ideas regarding sustainability but is not active enough on meta and on foundation-l to know things in detail. Mindspillage was vague in her statements and definitely to close to Jimbo: we don't need 3 Jimboites on the Board. UnlimitedCompany didn't realize how much work was to be done when sitting on the Board. Zuirdj had a nice background but his ideas were too much centered on community barriers, a bit like Arnomane. I like Cimon but i don't trust him enough for the Board, too unpredictable. I felt Aaron Swartz had some nice ideas but was way too young for the Board. Charles Matthews was too pragmatic and vague in his statement, but he definitely can be useful in grant-hunting season. I have no idea why i rejected Kim's candidature, it looked alright on the paper but i had a bad feeling. I almost voted for Moo despite her lack of international flavor, i felt she could shake things up at the Board. Yet something in her resumé looked not completely honnest to me (i know i should have asked her for some explanation). For the rest of the bunch well i didn't spend too much time deciding. (:Julien:) 20 septembre 2006 à 18:00 (CEST)

[modifier] Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (2005)

  • I feel vindicated that the Volunteer position has been abandoned and also that the word has the spread the Board should be expanded and the community even more involved.
  • Three candidates out of six were suitable for the Board but since Cimon was not really active on the foundation ML i saw no reason to vote for him. I opted for the status quo i.e., Angela and Anthère [girls rule!]. I'm even a bit pissed i had to translate sj's statement in french since basically he didn't even wanted to be elected!
  • I really felt my edit count was waaaaaay bigger than this meager 3.782 until 30/05, so i nerdishly recounted it manually and there are about 4.500 from my first to this one July, 6. So this goddam count is actually right!

(:Julien:) 6 juillet 2005 à 21:08 (CEST)

[modifier] Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (2004)

(My rationale on the board election)

Why vote since:

  • there are no status for the board members yet, one doesn't know (or at least i don't) what they'll be entitled to do, whether their position is pointless...;
  • anyway Jim Wales has already secured 3 out of 5 votes so he's got the hand on the board whatever the votes are;
  • no candidate ever criticized Wales' opinions [not that i have anything against him personally but hey at some point, somehow, sometimes he might be wrong];
  • i don't think Wiki will be ruled by 5 wise-senior-coo/ceo/-representatives and everyone else just following slavishly but more like sthg collective so is this board suitable.

Furthermore:

  • i refuse the duality between "Contributing Active Member Representative" and "Volunteer User Representative", there should be only representatives for the whole wikipedians. Providing financial assistance to the Wiki Fundation is no reason to obtain a double vote and i thought it was obvious to many here. I held true to this in not voting for the Contributing position.

Still: i voted as a token i belong to this community and want to get involved in it (and btw i voted for Angela, i don't see any reason keeping this secret).

(:Julien:) 25 jun 2004 à 13:53 (CEST)