Talk:Board of Trustees

From the Wikimedia Foundation
Revision as of 23:18, 10 August 2012 by MZMcBride (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

We should set-up a similar page as soon as we get some more official postions. --Daniel Mayer 05:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Official positions By the way,

  • @De, Fr, Ko; page(s) should be updated - there is only mention to Election 2004, and its vote elibigility but this information is now almost useless because the eligilibity in this year was changed.
  • En modified, but still it seems to need to be worked due to the same reason as above; and if it is okay, before calling for translators, it should be copyedited.

Thank you for attention, --Aphaea 22:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Where to discuss this page

I have a couple of comments on this page, mainly regarding style and consistency. Since most people can not edit and discuss on this wiki, is there a talk page on meta which is more suitable? If so, where? // habj 15:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

True. This is not a right place to have a discussion. We are better to go to an open wiki. How about m:Talk:Translation requests/WMF/Board of Trustees (or ../source)? We can also invite people somewhere else, site feedback, m:Metapub etc. --Aphaea 15:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


"(to be held until chapters make their own appointment)"

I misread this to understand that Michael held the Chair position until the chapters make their own appointments, rather than that his term is until the chapters make their own appointment. At the moment I think it is reasonable to read it as the chapters will be appointing the Chair and the Executive Secretary, rather than simply appointing those two seats (not many people fully understand how the executive is appointed).

However, I didn't want to make any changes for fear of losing body parts, so suggesting it to someone who has guillotine-immunity :) Cheers, Daniel 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking this earlier but then forgot about it. ;-) I just added a note that should clear it up a little bit. Cbrown1023 talk 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Courtesy of WJBscribe:

EasyTimeline 1.90

Timeline generation failed: 2 errors found
Line 38: color:appointed from:14/02/2008 till:20/04/2014 text:"[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]]¹"

- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.

 Date '20/04/2014' not within range as specified by command Period.

Line 57: color:appointed from:14/02/2008 till:20/04/2014 text:"[[User:Midom|Domas Mituzas]]¹"

- Plotdata attribute 'till' invalid.

 Date '20/04/2014' not within range as specified by command Period.

Anyone know how to fix it so it displays, and any ideas where we should put it? Daniel 00:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bring up a discussion on m:Wikimedia site feedback (so more can participate) and make sure we poke Jay or someone on ComCom for their opinion. Cbrown1023 talk 14:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticking this somewhere for a few minutes

Going to switch a Board member infobox in a few minutes, but in case I get distracted, I snipped this info out of the article.... --MZMcBride 23:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


I doubt if anyone is ever going to read that amount of text, especially with the newest additions which are awfully formatted. I'd suggest a rewrite of the page, for instance in a way that Bishakha's and Stu's one-paragraph descriptions suggest, with links to more detailed descriptions where appriopriate. (And probably a new, more colourful design, could also help.) A concerned Wikimedian, odder 23:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed.

There are a few issues here with the current version of the page:

  • there's currently too much text for each person (only about a paragraph or two is needed);
  • some of the writing is just bad;
  • the tenure accomplishments sections are bizarre:
    • they're horribly duplicative;
      • including completely out-of-left-field sentences such as "This year, Lisbett Rausing and Peter Baldwin have donated $1.25 million." (repeated three times!);
    • usually sections such as these would be reserved only for Board chairs (in the same way that high court history is written about and referred to by the chief judge [e.g.., the Rehnquist Court]);
    • this kind of content would generally go on a single Board history or Board accomplishments page;
    • these tenure sections create needless page imbalance between old and new Board members (which is bad for both aesthetic/layout and social reasons);
  • we need better linking to more information; if people really want Jimmy's full bio, they can read his user page and/or his biography on the English Wikipedia; the former Board members actually already have this feature; and lastly
  • more text is a larger pain in the ass to get translated.

I'm hoping to find some time in the next week or so to fix up the page. We'll see! --MZMcBride (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)