Keep right on rockin', Cla.....as if anything will "change"..... (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
QUOTE
Measuring Wikimedia's performance
Jimbo, to continue the previous discussion which suddenly closed. You said that I "aggressively misread" what you wrote. So, could you please help me to clarify what you mean by answering the following questions? I understand that these are a lot of questions, but I think your answers would really help people understand how the Foundation is exercising leadership and management control over what is quickly becoming a multi-million dollar, complex organization with far-reaching goals and vision.
As a member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees [3], are you, in effect, Sue Gardner's supervisor along with the other board members?
If so, do you and the other board members conduct an annual, formal, written performance evaluation on Ms Gardner's and the Foundation's performance? If not, why not?
If so, could you link to last year's formal evaluation, of either Ms Gardner or the Foundation, wherever it is posted? I'm not talking about budget performance, I'm talking about performance with regard to accomplishing Wikimedia's mission statement.
If a performance evaluation is done on Ms Gardner and/or the Foundation, how is it accomplished? Are performance goals (not financial) set at the beginning of the evaluation period? If so, could you link to where the most recent goals are listed?
Wikimedia does have a five year plan with measurable goals. Is Ms Gardner's performance evaluated on progression towards these five-year goals? If so, how is it done? Are annual, incremental goals set? If so, could you please link to them?
The five-year plan was approved in October 2010. Has there been a report done on the past year's Foundation performance as directly related to the five-year plan?
Is Ms Gardner evaluated and graded on performance related to any goals or objectives not listed in the five-year plan? If so, where are they listed?
Is the "philosophy" of Wikimedia that you mentioned above detailed in the "rationale" column in the five-year plan? If so, how does that philosophy prevent creation of goals for resolving problems like new editor retention and grading Foundation executives on meeting those goals?
There does appear to be a system for measuring certain aspects of Wikimedia's output. Are these purposefully designed to measure progress towards accomplishment of the five-year plan? If so, are the metrics specifically mentioned in the performance evaluations for Ms Gardner and the other Foundation executives?
Ms Gardner recently mentioned "rogue admins" as a problem. Is she developing an action plan to resolve this problem and will she be graded on it in her next performance evaluation?
In that same presentation, Ms Gardner mentioned a problem with new editor retention. I don't see any mention of this problem in the five-year plan. Will it be added as a formal action item for future performance plans for the Foundation? If so, will Ms Gardner's performance be graded on how well she resolves the problem?
Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, since you are raising issues of governance, is it correct that you've expressed a desire on Wikipedia Review for Wikimedia UK to lose its charity status?[4] How would that help achieve any of these goals? Will Beback talk 07:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo unbans Brexx unilaterally, and all hell breaks loose.
Alison Jimbo unbans Brexx unilaterally 
