Organizational impropriety Options

[thekohser]

From the 2011-2012 Wikimedia Foundation plan (page 19):

The likeliest source of external distraction is probably media resulting from a reputational issue, such as editorial scandal or perceived organizational impropriety. Risk of editorial scandal can't be mitigated: there is an inherent level of risk that we cannot side-step. Risk of organizational impropriety is unlikely at the WMF due to its experienced leadership team and well-established controls. However, the risk is greater within the chapters, which are young and primarily run by volunteers with little experience.

So, is it perceived organizational impropriety, or is it actual organizational impropriety?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Kelly Martin]

That statement is clearly a calculated attempt to minimize the role of chapters in ongoing governance. There has long been pressure to give chapters some role, possibly a large role, in governing the Foundation; the main purpose of that statement is to provide an excuse why this cannot be done.

[EricBarbour]

That statement is clearly a calculated attempt to minimize the role of chapters in ongoing governance. There has long been pressure to give chapters some role, possibly a large role, in governing the Foundation; the main purpose of that statement is to provide an excuse why this cannot be done.

And whose "fault" is it that the chapters are full of "impressionable" young people?
They went around encouraging it for years, and now they want to minimize their importance.

Sue, you are one mean little creature. Don't forget to tell them about the penis photos!

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: