hi Ilario,
I don't want to fuel this discussion, so I'll just reply briefly and shut
up :)
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As soon a board member has been selected/elected by a stakeholder, the
board of trustees cannot dismiss it following the action taken in this
specific case.
I think that what is clear and should stay untouched is the community's
share in the Board. However, I think that for many practical reasons the
Board should have the right to expel a single member, irrespective of how
they joined this body. I don't think it is viable to have a public
discussion and evaluation of what a member did wrong, and then a public
vote.
I am a community-elected member, and still I believe that the Board should
have the right to get rid of me, if they really want to. However, I think
that such a procedure:
(a) cannot happen often (as not to be abused)
(b) should not overall lead to a decrease of community-appointed members'
share in the Board.
I understand that James have "recognized his errors and admitted that he
made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board member" but at the
moment the records of the board's meeting says that James voted against his
dismission.
Yes, so did I. Recognizing mistakes is different from assessing the
consequences. James knew what he did wrong, but he assumed that he could
effectively use a second chance.
02.01.2016 12:07 PM "Dariusz Jemielniak" <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> napisał(a):
hi Ilario,
I don't want to fuel this discussion, so I'll just reply briefly and shut
up :)
Hi Dariusz,
governance is not a question mark that someone can mean as he wants.
In this case the real problem is connected with the stakeholders, and this
is an unsolved real problem of governance.
As soon a board member has been selected/elected by a stakeholder, the
board of trustees cannot dismiss it following the action taken in this
specific case.
In this case the problem of un-governance is the identification of the
stakeholders and the real power in the hands of each stakeholder.
The real problem of "un-governance" is more related with the action of the
board of trustee than with James (at the moment).
I understand that James have "recognized his errors and admitted that he
made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board member" but at the
moment the records of the board's meeting says that James voted against his
dismission.
It means that you are doing a personal statement, but the official one is
that James didn't accepted his dismission during the vote.
Kind regards
On 02.01.2016 12:08, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
Yet, when governance is involved, things work out a bit differently. I can
explain to you how I understand the results of the vote. I myself
considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others
reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and
admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board
member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also
understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did.
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>