Talk:Non-board committees

Volunteer?

Other committees such as the ARC are volunteer driven, unless we consider that trustees are not volunteers. Should these other committees be recognized as a volunteer committee with delegated powers and a separately defined scope, rather than making it seem that they are not volunteer committees? --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2014 (BST)

The board committees have their own separate charters, which I think is right given their very different roles. So, while you are right that those are indeed volunteer (trustee) led, it makes sense to deal with them separately. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2014 (BST)

My point was not whether to deal with them separately, but to recognise that the wording drives a procedural wedge between "volunteer committees" that welcome volunteer participation and "delegated committees" which in practice do not appear to attract volunteers.

For the sake of historic context, "sub-committees", i.e. committees that may have delegated powers, were not originally expected to be wholly composed of trustees and employees. In fact we originally hoped to not need more than one or two trustees on these committees so that several other interested members of the charity could take a more leading role without being trustees. For example, the Governance Committee and the Audit and Risk Committee have no named non-trustee observers, indeed despite my offering twice to do so, I have been unable to become an "observer" on the ARC, yet we deliberately wrote the terms of that committee to enable observers with relevant experience to contribute and remain involved. This is a poor practical measure of the transparency and accountability of the charity to its members. --Fæ (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Yes, I was aware from recent postings that you have volunteered your services on the Audit and Risk Committee. While the policy does allow non-trustees to be appointed as observers to Board Committees, the Board has not exercised its power to do so. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (BST)

You were recently asking for suggestions as to how the charity might measure transparency. I suggest you add this one to it, it is a pretty obvious direct measure. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2014 (BST)

It would be good to see the board thinking about appointing observers to the ARC/GovCom. There are a number of current volunteers that could give them useful input (and historical information), and it's also a good way to get external experts involved in WMUK's goverance work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2014 (BST)

It is indeed important that we make good use of community knowledge and experience, and I agree that appointing observers merits more discussion. Limited discussion so far simply reflects lack of board time, rather than any nefarious wish to keep things to trustee only. I will raise it with the board. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Recognized?

The documents lists four volunteer committees which are recognized by the board. Are there minutes of a board meeting that document this happening? --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2014 (BST)

If I remember rightly, the December board. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Checking Minutes_7Dec13, I can see that there were some minutes about who was going to join various committees, but there does not seem any vote where all four committees which are noted as recognized here, had their scopes/charters approved, nor their full membership approved (though I doubt the board of trustee intends to require that anyway).

As the charter for committees like the GLAM committee remains a draft, I would doubt that the board would want to be on record (in this document) as recognizing it, until the charter were published, with an active group of named members, and minutes being published on-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Have tweaked the wording. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Rather than including a list here, why not just link to Committees? A single list is easier to maintain than multiple lists... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2014 (BST)

(Also, I'm still confused why the Conference Committee is *still* being ignored here. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (BST))

Good idea on the link to link to Committees: done. The old Conference Committee doesn't seem to have existed in practice for quite a while now (no meetings, no reports), though it does have a historical page on the wiki. If it could be re-vitalised by volunteer effort, that would be great and I for one would support it, but to be frank I doubt that the board would want to impose such a committee on the community and say 'it is mandatory for all conference discussions to go via that committee'. There, perhaps, is the distinction between your suggestion (the charity is not allowed to do anything other than via its committees) and what I believe is a more inclusive approach (make the committees useful, interesting and effective) but don't exclude volunteers who prefer to do their own thing. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Closing committees

I wonder whether the reference to closing committees be made more explicit. We cannot stop volunteers from forming groups to discuss the charity's activities (or indeed, whatever they want to discuss). What we can do is something like: recommend committees cease their activities, withdraw staff and board support, and discontinue requests for board reports. Sjgknight (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Well, a group that meets 'to discuss the charity's activities' or to do things outside the auspices of the charity is free to do whatever they want, but isn't a Committee for our purposes and, as you say, will have no (or at least less) support and will not have the formal advisory role and direct line to the CE and board that committees have. Of course, that may be fine, that may be what the group in questions wants, and that's not to say that they can't still do good work. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Should've been clearer, I'm thinking of groups which are committees, but which it is felt should no longer retain that status. I think we'd want to be clear about what closing down means (as above) in part because we don't want to give the impression that we (the board/staff) are in the business of setting up/closing down committees (which we of course are not). Sjgknight (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2014 (BST)

I recommend a procedural close that is not subject to a "narrative" work-around. For example "Any committee failing to meet or publish minutes for 6 months will default to being closed, and requires a fresh vote of trustees to be recognized with an approved scope again." This probably already applies to some of the named committees. --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Committee selections (or elections)

The proposal sets committee size limits at 5 or more, and fewer than 13. Pragmatically this is unlikely to be an issue e.g. for the education committee (on which I sit), but is it something we’re happy to formalise, and would we like to include something in this (or leave it to the committees individually) regarding selection processes if more people wish to join Sjgknight (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2014 (BST)

I have sat on committees with active members hovering at 3 or 4. Sometimes these are the most productive and useful operational committees for making proposals and recommendations. Setting a lower limit at 5 may mean having people adding names to make up the numbers, but in practice do not attend meetings. I note that the ARC only has 4 members, as an example, and when I was part of it, it only had 3 members. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Those actual figures come from the earlier 2012 proposal, made I believe by Mike Peel. While I'm not wedded to them, it does perhaps make sense to ensure that a committee doesn't end up being one-person-and-a-dog, and neither does it end up being so all-inclusive that most of the people who are allegedly members actually don't have enough time or perhaps interest to turn up to meetings. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2014 (BST)

If you are going to retain this restriction at 5, even if you are not wedded to it, do you expect that committees that regularly publish minutes with 4 or fewer named attendees to close? --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2014 (BST)

As I said, this is a tentative proposal. What would be your own suggestion for improving it? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Say less, and more in plain English rather than legal English (for example the heavy use of "shall be", particularly for aspects that are not controlled by the board of trustees or are non-controversially logical). "Committees determine their membership" is fine. When the board reviews a committee's "remit", they can suggest the proposed document define membership, which covers what happens if there is a lack of active members in the future. No need to define all that in this document, it just creates bureaucracy that is likely to drain creativity from our organization. --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Is 5 too large for a lower limit? Would 3 be better? Is 13 right? Do we need any numbers at all? If no, does it matter if we end up with a committee having a very large nominal membership most of whom are no longer active? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2014 (BST)

The numbers I suggested before were aimed at a situation where the committees had decision-making powers within their budgets, and were appointed by the board. That no longer seems to be the case (sadly, and for no good reason), so I'd suggest removing the point and letting good judgement by the board decide whether the committee continues to be sustainable or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2014 (BST)

I'd personally be amenable to that. Other views? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Committees and other bodies

This looks like a very good draft for thinking about the GLAM/education/tech committees (and other committees of that ilk). I wonder, though, whether the grants committee and the (dormant?) conference committee are a somewhat different beast, and ought to fall under another charter and possibly title. For example, I sit on the grants committee, but it doesn't ever meet (in person or by phone), it advises on individual grants but not on the bigger operational-strategic level (although perhaps it should do this), it has a fairly small fixed size which welcomes feedback from other interesting members, etc. The conf-com will be slightly different, but of a similar type. The quick solution to this is just to call those two something else, and deal with the 'Committees' now and other things later. Sjgknight (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2014 (BST)

We haven't discussed this yet, but it would make sense for the grants committee to operate on the same footing as the other volunteer committees. I rather think it should meet regularly, should advise the CE on the how the grants program aligns with our strategic goals, and should report quarterly as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (BST)

I agree with Michael here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2014 (BST)

That is also a quick solution :-). Same for conf-com (presumably if the members want to do that!)? Sjgknight (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2014 (BST)

"They are not exclusive structures"

I'd encourage you to rethink the point that says that they aren't exclusive structures. I've seen staff members and volunteers ignore committee structures in the past (e.g. ConfCom with EduWiki, also Wikimania 2014, and more recently TechCom with hiring a program manager), and generally speaking it hasn't gone well for WMUK. It's also really annoying from a volunteer perspective. Either give committees a reasonable level of control over/ability to provide recommendations on their areas of expertise, or don't bother having them. That's not to say that the committees should have control of every single detail or event, but high-level input should be a continual must. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (BST)

For context:

They are not exclusive structures, in the sense that they do not and cannot constrain the broader work that volunteers and staff do. Volunteers are never required to work within a Committee environment (and indeed volunteers who prefer not to be not members of Wikimedia UK are not easily able to do so). Committees may not attempt to control volunteers or ad hoc working groups that prefer to remain outside the formal Committee structure.

Do you have an alternative wording here? I can see your point, but of course we also want to support (or, cannot and should not prevent) people getting involved in many different ways. I think you're referring to particular examples but I'm not sure which/when, etc. There may also need to be some thinking about whether we define the committee-strategy role and the way that feeds into the board/operations, and whether some things committees currently do would be of a slightly different nature. Not sure what the best solution is here, it's an interesting point. Sjgknight (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (BST)

How about "Committees should not try to control the detailed work of WMUK, and they must recognise that they cannot control everything that is done by Wikimedia UK volunteers. However, they should expect to be involved in all high-level discussions and decisions about the topic of the committee, whether that work is done by staff or volunteers." Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Hmm, this seems to go to a fundamental issue of governance. The wording "they should expect to be involved" has as its corollary "the charity requires that all effective work towards our mission must be pushed through a board-approved committee structure". I do understand that that has been your preference for some time (a long time?) but I actually find that quite difficult to square with openness and inclusivity, though I'm sure that is our agreed aim here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2014 (BST)

If I decide to go and create another GLAM relationship or project that leads to 10,000 high quality images being released on Commons, I do not have to get approval to do it, and I don't expect to go with cap in hand to the board of trustees, nor waste the time of charity employees, for decisions that I can make by myself and have a track record of several years of success. If the charity puts up arbitrary bureaucratic barriers and "requiring" control rather than empowering active volunteers, then I'm afraid that the most passionate of volunteers will drift off to other open knowledge projects. I have done projects of this type on my own as an independent, and I could do pretty much the same thing under the OKFN umbrella, and stick their credit line on the uploaded images, if I want someone to pay the 7 quid of my Oyster card expenses. If the board is not interested in finding agile and lightweight ways of supporting projects that are not controlled by employees or entail significant charity funding, then maybe volunteers should be encouraged to form alternative methods of efficient and effective self-organization, such as the UK WikiSociety that has been discussed in other places and would be able to pick the low-hanging fruit that is available for the cost of a sandwich or a cheap train ticket with no administrative overheads. --Fæ (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Exactly; I entirely agree. That is why the charter leans heavily towards empowerment and not control. Though you haven't responded directly to Mike, it sounds as though you may not agree with him in his wish to concentrate things through the formal committee structure. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Mike is not making the final call on these policies. We do not have to agree on the details.

By the way, perhaps this is only obvious to me, but to say that an organization is committed to empowering volunteers whilst at the same time creating policies that deny volunteers authority or control, is a classic example of doublespeak. --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2014 (BST)

As a UK charity we would be in breach of the law if we allowed volunteers the sort of unfettered 'authority or control' that you might prefer. You may be thinking of some completely different organizational structure such as Wikipedia. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2014 (BST)

I have no idea why you are repeatedly making extreme cases, and saying I am confusing this UK Charity with Wikipedia. I was on the team that created this charity and I personally interviewed a number of the current staff for their jobs, I think I know what this charity is, please provide me some level of respect for this background. Nobody has mentioned "unfettered". I have a friend that volunteers for Oxfam, he has control of the petty cash box when he is the only one in the shop and can handle pricing discrepencies on the spot. This means delegating a bit of reasonable authority so that a trusted volunteer can control money and sales. Oxfam is not in breach of the law.

I do not know why you are asking for views and feedback from volunteers, if you are intend to brush us off with sarcastic comments like this. I really don't see the point, you may as well create documents like this in-camera and just publish it as a done deal, without upsetting volunteers by having forms of consultation that you are not prepared to listen to. --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Fae, I am sorry that my comment upset you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks. Considering that in the time I have spent reading this today, I could have got on with a bit more work on sorting out an interesting upload involving Europeana's API, I'll take this page off my watch list. The approach to this policy and change-resistant nature of this consultation, supports my view that the charity has drifted a long way from being the volunteer-centric organization it used to be, not so long ago. Hopefully that is something that can come out more strongly at the time of the next annual meeting and vote of members. --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Fæ, I think you've missed my point here. Yes, I would agree that you should be able to voluntarily create a relationship with a GLAM that gives such results. However, I don't think you should be able to do that without sharing that contact/relationship with others involved in such work so that it can continue if you have a bad encounter with a London bus, and you shouldn't be put in a position where you can upload so many photos where you might make a mistake that leaves you in hot water that could have been avoided by peer review in advance. My proposal here was aimed at providing an opportunity for other volunteers to provide input on how to avoid ending up in hot water, and keep things going in the long run, rather than trying to prevent things happening. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2014 (BST)

What about this? Does that go any way towards meeting your concerns?

They are not exclusive structures, in the sense that they do not and cannot constrain the broader work that volunteers do. Volunteers are never required to work within a Committee environment (and indeed volunteers who prefer not to be not members of Wikimedia UK are not easily able to do so). Committees may not attempt to control volunteers or ad hoc working groups that prefer to remain outside the formal Committee structure. However, there is an expectation that Committees will address all matters falling within their broad remit, whether or not the specific work being carried out is being done under the committee's direct supervision.

Apart from anything else, one of the major committee roles could be to ensure continued alignment between the entirety of work being carried out (within the scope of the committee's remit) and our agreed top-level strategy. They can only do that if they have the power to review non-committee projects and even - as a last resort, if they are failing - to recommend to the CE that projects be no longer funded/formally supported. It's pretty unlikely in practice that the CE would choose to ignore the advice of a specialist committee unless he had exceptionally good reasons to do so in which case he would no doubt want to explain those to the board. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2014 (BST) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure that this helps. In particular, the removal of staff from this comment is worrisome - staff in particular should involve volunteers/committees as much as possible, rather than excluding them as is currently the case. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2014 (BST)

Mike, would you mind reading the text again? Unless I have misunderstood your point entirely (quite possible), you appear to have read the opposite of what is there. The original version said that committees cannot constrain volunteers and staff; now it says they cannot constrain volunteers. The "expectation that Committees will address all matters falling within their broad remit" means that they are expected to address programmes that the staff may be working on with non-committee volunteers. Pretty well what you were pressing for, surely? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2014 (BST)

A few comments

On a personal note, I am not a WMUK member, so would be excluded from participation by this charter. Which is of course not up to me. (I rehearsed my reasons for letting my membership lapse to a staff member not that long ago: at least one of them still applies.)

Various comments, some of which I have mentioned on the UK list:

• I am recorded in a Tech committee minute as saying that the criterion for success, in relation to volunteers on the committees, is to be measured by actions they take on and complete.
• I can add to that the amplification that the comment was about "volunteer engagement". There are different ways to contribute to committees, and the "talking shop" function is also valuable.
• "Committee work" needs to get done, though, and actions are significant. Everyone on a committee should be on a level, as far as that is concerned. The onus is on the group.
• I don't actually see the success or otherwise of these committees as essentially determined by "constitutional" matters.
• The "tacit" stuff. Implicit in participation should be something like this: "all committee members should respect good practice in matters of collaboration, delegation, and moderation of discussions".
• I have made comments on the Tech list and UK list that relate to the previous point. I don't think those "tacit" things have always been respected. I have gone as far as I want to in public on that, really: the washing of dirty linen.
• Basically, respect for delegation has been a tussle over governance.
• Collaboration in the Wikimedia sense is not at all easy to operate offsite, and it is really important that principles like COI and not arguing from authority are recognised as relevant.
• As a current WMUK contractor, I have taken part in two related committees, when it appeared I needed to do so, in particular to advocate for technical support for the VLE. (I took on the work before those committees existed.) This was not a good experience; and no doubt it colours my views. I still consider myself a "stakeholder" in the Tech and Education areas.
• I have made comments about principles of treatment of stakeholders. In one way this is a moderation issue: anyone who advocates on behalf of a project risks COI, but of course the committees must be receptive to such advocacy, and need to be able to discuss it in detail, in order to form a view. I would say that these discussions should be handled with greater awareness of the issues.
• I largely agree with Doug Taylor on operational matters for these committees, but the comments above should be taken as caveats within that view. One person's "be bold" is another's "chucking weight around". I have at times struggled to see what colleagues find to justify their approaches.

In sum, a healthy culture in the committees requires awareness at a few different levels of what is going on. I see there as being plenty of work to do on that. It could be helped by greater transparency on "routes to resources", and tech management with a single point at which to apply. The issues I see are not that easily decoupled from WMUK matters in general. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2014 (BST)

With regard to arguing from authority or chucking weight around, I would rather put the issue as the charity is no longer volunteer centric in its approach, nor its actions. I think this is a more relevant concept/issue as arguing from authority might become a rationale to avoid listening to experts. Some examples of how the charity has stopped being volunteer centric, I am sure there are others:

• Not that long ago, the GLAM programme and managing relationships with partnering organizations was entirely volunteer driven, now all coordination not only defaults to going through employees but is expected to always be managed by employees.
• Committees with delegated powers are limited to trustees and employees as members, with no observers.
• 2013 was the last time any numbers for active volunteers was reported or estimated.
• The Village pump (water cooler) is now primarily for employee notices and a place to passively promote events rather than a volunteer forum for discussion.
• All blog posts for the charity are posted through an employee, whereas previously a number of unpaid volunteers could prepare and put up posts.
• The proportion of trustees who are significantly active on Wikimedia projects has reduced, year on year.
• The ratio of employee numbers (including contractors) to active volunteer and membership numbers has increased year on year.
• Under the new policy intended to focus Committees, Wikimedia project volunteers will not be welcome to take part unless they are paying members of the charity. The reverse does not apply... in that there is no requirement for Committee members (or final decision makers) to be active or experienced with Wikimedia projects.

--Fæ (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2014 (BST)

To respond to the point about blog posts, I have always done my best to make it clear that volunteers are welcome at any time to contribute content to the blog. There is no barrier to participation here, except the perception of one. Aside from stating, again, that everyone connected with the charity is welcome to write content for the blog, I'm not sure what more I can do. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Yes, the issue is indeed one of perception, but perception can itself be powerful and we should do all we can to counter it (as you have done here). We know from the membership survey results that negativity on the wiki is by far the most frequently-mentioned offputting thing about the charity. New volunteers and potential members need encouragement, and that can happen only if long-standing and experienced community members do their bit. Clearly, the staff are doing more than their fair share at the moment, which is good as it keeps the news coming, keeps the website fresh, and keeps us in the public eye. If staff did not push the posts in the way they do, they could legitimately be criticized for not keeping the community informed (and no doubt they would be). But they should not also be criticised for doing good work in the absence of many volunteers who are prepared to use their time in that way. Volunteers can't be coerced, and no doubt most have other things they wish to focus on. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks. My point about control, "all blog posts for the charity are posted through an employee" is correct, I did not mention the other aspects that you have raised, nor was I interested in raising them. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2014 (BST)

As the person accountable for the charity's communications I have a responsibility to ensure that content posted on the blog is appropriate. I make no apology for this. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Sorry this is weird to me. I was putting how the policies we previously had were tangibly more volunteer centric than they are now. This is not a personal attack on you, nor was I expecting an apology from anyone. --Fæ (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Then I'm not sure of the relevance of mentioning the blog at all. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Because it is one amongst many aspects of the workings of the charity where volunteers used to have control and no longer do. --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Comms is actually my main beef, and has been for years now. It has got into this thread by an obscure route, making it off-topic here. Thread discipline is one aspect of self-policing; I find what Michael Maggs says above quite credible. We can surely have these discussions, but in some better fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Charles, I am more than happy to discuss it with you at any time. Perhaps we could add it to our agenda when we next speak about the VLE? Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Surely. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Well, interesting to hear another view, but as they say, everyone's mileage may vary. I know a couple of committees - Tech and Education - and they pretty much straddle the aims of the charity. But I wouldn't say that I follow everything.

My reaction to your points, Fæ, in order, would be (1) WMUK hired someone (2) Articles, issue goes right back to Board reluctance to delegate anything at all (3) Metrics discussion not my cup of tea, in isolation anyway (4) Shrug - use of this wiki is a whole other discussion (5) The blog is good and active (6) True, but the role of trustees is also different now (7) The spending issue is again a whole other discussion, and spending on staff needs case-by-case analysis (8) First part I have noted. Second part: but they would rub shoulders on committees with echt Wikimedians, so why not?

As an ex-member of the staff, my default view would naturally be that having staff handle things is not in itself a problem. Actual problems do arise in all sorts of places: what would we expect?

My real concern, to get it down to fewer words: unless the committees manage a better job of self-policing in future, they will not do the job of leavening the work of the charity with insights from the Wikimedian community side. I think we are agreeing that the "leavening" is what should go on: simply subtracting staff work or trustee input with a take from outside is not going to help.

One of the key wiki principles, not often enough enunciated though, is no one has all the good ideas. What WMUK needs is contexts where it can be applied. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks Charles.

Going back to the first part of your initial post in this section; I certainly hope we don't end up with wording that means that non-members cannot participate on these committees. There are a number of situations where people find it difficult to be a member of an organisation but would be able to offer input to a committee & that should be accommodated.

Personally I would hope that the committees did more than "leavening". I would ideally like to see them taking a very proactive role and genuinely shaping the future of their work areas (with the corollary that the Chief Exec and ultimately the Board respect and support their judgement).

Regards, The Land (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2014 (BST)

Referring back to the list discussion, I mentioned "effective discussion", and got a gold star from Michael M. Well, that is what one hopes for, and each of us would unpack that idea in a slightly different way.

The need is clear enough, and I feel the Board should have a free hand to slice up WMUK activities into a packet of remits, areas of the right sort of size; rather than, for example, restricting the size of committees ahead of time, or just submitting to the inertia of the status quo. Decent work has been going on, but the system is certainly imperfect as it stands. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2014 (BST)