Talk:Minutes 2013-01-08

Notes on the WiR vote added after the meeting

Note by MP added after the meeting

"I said 'nay' here on the basis that I hadn't had time to review the new draft agreement to make sure that it covered my previously-raised concerns, as it had only been shared with the board earlier that day."

Note by Fae after the meeting

"My nay was in the context of underpinning concerns of taking a heavily contractual and legal approach to future GLAM WIR projects. There is a definite need to protect trademarks, the Wikimedia "brand" and WMF word marks, however the majority of other potential issues of reputational risk are probably better addressed by policy and friendly comprehensive guidelines so that institutions and volunteers have no doubt how best practice for WIR projects, partnerships and joint funding may work, particularly when there are serious failures or exposures. At the end of the day, there is nobody here we would ever sue for damages, and we are free to withdraw funding at any point, or where there are no funds being used, take a project off our "official" register of approved projects, should that be the key issue. There is a danger that we are shifting to unnecessary bureaucracy that will drive great open knowledge projects away from the chapter and the support of the Wikimedia movement and volunteer network."

My amendment to the real-time etherpad notes, created before this document was copied on-wiki, were intended for inclusion in the minutes of the meeting to give context to my vote. My text is substantially based on the extended and now undocumented discussion during the meeting. I have requested they be re-added to the minutes (which are still in draft) but this has been refused by the Secretary. Having them deleted from the draft minutes and moved here, is not equivalent to including explanation of trustee votes in the minutes. As this has reached an impasse by email, I have deferred this to the next board meeting in February, at which time I will be able to vote on the minutes formally, and if necessary log the same material in the next set of minutes by doing so in the live meeting. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My refusal was on the basis that the minutes record what was discussed and decided on during the meeting, and that any post-meeting notes adding additional context, while useful, shouldn't form part of that formal record. A pointer to this talk page seems sufficient to me. Modifications to the text of the minutes so that they better reflect the discussions that took place are welcome, and should be made at the appropriate point in the minutes, rather than as a post-meeting note. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)