Talk:Board/Role profiles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
# ''"is the principal point of contact between the Board of Trustees and senior contacts at the Wikimedia Foundation and in other Wikimedia chapters"'' — Why? In practice the other chapters liaise with WMUK at many levels including the GLAM programme, CEO and staff and leading volunteers. Being the "principal point of contact" is neither enforceable or desirable, especially considering recent disasters of communication and poor representation. I suggest the specific point of contact is defined but flexible in order to reflect who might be seen as the most competent to be the point of contact, rather than because they might temporarily hold the role of "Chair". | # ''"is the principal point of contact between the Board of Trustees and senior contacts at the Wikimedia Foundation and in other Wikimedia chapters"'' — Why? In practice the other chapters liaise with WMUK at many levels including the GLAM programme, CEO and staff and leading volunteers. Being the "principal point of contact" is neither enforceable or desirable, especially considering recent disasters of communication and poor representation. I suggest the specific point of contact is defined but flexible in order to reflect who might be seen as the most competent to be the point of contact, rather than because they might temporarily hold the role of "Chair". | ||
# the word "ensure" is used heavily for things that the Chair has no realistic control over. The word "assure" might be more appropriate, for example when it comes to supporting other trustees turning up to Board meetings. | # the word "ensure" is used heavily for things that the Chair has no realistic control over. The word "assure" might be more appropriate, for example when it comes to supporting other trustees turning up to Board meetings. | ||
# ''"conducts the Chief Executive's appraisal and objective-setting"'' — this is completely arbitrary. It happens to have worked this way recently, but an appointed panel of trustees (and non-trustees, such as Associates) might be entirely appropriate with the Chair just one of the contributors. Please do not start writing arbitrary elements of power permanently into the role of Chair, otherwise it looks like a position that would have to be for a paid politician. There is a special problem with the Chair being defined as the ''one'' who sets the CEO's objectives - this runs counter to the collective responsibility of the trustees to ensure appropriate delegation of operational authority to the CEO as ''all'' have to responsible for | # ''"conducts the Chief Executive's appraisal and objective-setting"'' — this is completely arbitrary. It happens to have worked this way recently, but an appointed panel of trustees (and non-trustees, such as Associates) might be entirely appropriate with the Chair just one of the contributors. Please do not start writing arbitrary elements of power permanently into the role of Chair, otherwise it looks like a position that would have to be for a paid politician. There is a special problem with the Chair being defined as the ''one'' who sets the CEO's objectives - this runs counter to the collective responsibility of the trustees to ensure appropriate delegation of operational authority to the CEO as ''all'' have to remain responsible for these objectives which implement the trustee agreed strategy. | ||
As it stands I would vote against extending the Chair role in this arbitrary way. The Chair is not supposed to be the Master of trustees. If you really think we need a President in order to function, dis-empower the trustees and become far more politically complex, then I suggest a resolution to do it and we can have an EGM to ensure the members express a strong opinion on the matter rather than sneaking it in via the back door. I declare in advance that I will be voting against having a Presidency. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | As it stands I would vote against extending the Chair role in this arbitrary way. The Chair is not supposed to be the Master of trustees. If you really think we need a President in order to function, dis-empower the trustees and become far more politically complex, then I suggest a resolution to do it and we can have an EGM to ensure the members express a strong opinion on the matter rather than sneaking it in via the back door. I declare in advance that I will be voting against having a Presidency. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:29, 28 October 2012
The Chair is starting to look like a President
This definition is getting too sweeping. I take particular issue with:
- "is the principal point of contact between the Board of Trustees and senior contacts at the Wikimedia Foundation and in other Wikimedia chapters" — Why? In practice the other chapters liaise with WMUK at many levels including the GLAM programme, CEO and staff and leading volunteers. Being the "principal point of contact" is neither enforceable or desirable, especially considering recent disasters of communication and poor representation. I suggest the specific point of contact is defined but flexible in order to reflect who might be seen as the most competent to be the point of contact, rather than because they might temporarily hold the role of "Chair".
- the word "ensure" is used heavily for things that the Chair has no realistic control over. The word "assure" might be more appropriate, for example when it comes to supporting other trustees turning up to Board meetings.
- "conducts the Chief Executive's appraisal and objective-setting" — this is completely arbitrary. It happens to have worked this way recently, but an appointed panel of trustees (and non-trustees, such as Associates) might be entirely appropriate with the Chair just one of the contributors. Please do not start writing arbitrary elements of power permanently into the role of Chair, otherwise it looks like a position that would have to be for a paid politician. There is a special problem with the Chair being defined as the one who sets the CEO's objectives - this runs counter to the collective responsibility of the trustees to ensure appropriate delegation of operational authority to the CEO as all have to remain responsible for these objectives which implement the trustee agreed strategy.
As it stands I would vote against extending the Chair role in this arbitrary way. The Chair is not supposed to be the Master of trustees. If you really think we need a President in order to function, dis-empower the trustees and become far more politically complex, then I suggest a resolution to do it and we can have an EGM to ensure the members express a strong opinion on the matter rather than sneaking it in via the back door. I declare in advance that I will be voting against having a Presidency. --Fæ (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)