[Foundation-l] [Announcement] board expansion

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] Erik's New Job

[Foundation-l] Welcome to our new...

Florence Devouard

22 Dec 2007 22 Dec '07

9:47 a.m.

Dear community The board recently passed a resolution, which you will find below In the aftermath of the resignation of Michael Davis (effective october 31th, 2007) and Erik Moëller (effective december 15th, 2007), the board confirms its will to replace the two former board members, as well as its committment to expand the number of members on the board of directors at the earliest convenience, up to a number of 11 members maximum. Due to its commitment to involve members from the community, at least half of the new members will be appointed for a term ending at the next board elections, in june 2008. ----------- Florence

Show replies by date

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

22 Dec 22 Dec

10:22 a.m.

On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:

...

I think I am bound to say, if I understand the import of this resolution correctly, that this decision is a very poor show indeed. Am I to really understand that the new seats which are "community seats" will be initially filled by appointment? That is, not only will Eriks seat which is temporally vacant because of his resignation be filled pro tem by appointment, but the board will make a "designated incumbent" decision on the other new "community seats" too, even though there is no existing _vacancy_ to those seats. Some may think that the only problem here is that those people will merely be "confirmed" by the community, not chosen by it, but that is hardly the only problem with this fashion of working. It would not be unreasonable to assume in light of current goings on that accepting such an appointment would be somewhat akin to accepting a poisoned chalice, or a kiss of death. Being appointed by the current board, would mean that it may be that the vote up or vote down of these new board members would take some degree of being a vote on the current pre-existing board and its legitimacy, and not merely on the persons of the appointed people themselves. That would be a very unfortunate pass to see ourselves at, and I would like to give the community more credit than that, but it is not something I find entirely improbable. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Florence Devouard

10:50 a.m.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

...

On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:

To be fair, I read your email 4 times and did not understand what you meant :-( Can you rephrase in a clearer fashion ? Ant

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

11:05 a.m.

On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:

Eriks

seat which is temporally vacant because of his resignation be filled pro tem by appointment, but the board will make a "designated incumbent" decision on the other new "community seats" too, even though there is no existing _vacancy_ to those seats. Some may think that the only problem here is that those people will merely be "confirmed" by the community, not chosen by it, but that is hardly the only problem with this fashion of working. It would not be unreasonable to assume in light of current goings on that accepting such an appointment would be somewhat akin to accepting a poisoned chalice, or a kiss of death. Being appointed by the current board, would mean that it may be that the vote up or vote down of these new board members would take some degree of being a vote on the current pre-existing board and its legitimacy, and not merely on the persons of the appointed people themselves. That would be a very unfortunate pass to see ourselves at, and I would like to give the community more credit than that, but it is not something I find entirely improbable. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

To be fair, I read your email 4 times and did not understand what you meant :-( Can you rephrase in a clearer fashion ? Ant

Okay. I will draw you a diagram. Did you mean you will be in the very near future be appointing six new members to the board (people chosen by the board)? 1 to replace Erik. (to be up for election later, with the appointed person choosing whether to run or not for an elected term) 1 to replace Michael Davis (presumably to remain an appointed seat) And a maximum of 4 new members to have either an appointed seat or a temporary seat that will be a "community seat" which will be up for election later, with the appointed temporary holder of the seat having the option to stand for election or not. Is that what will happen? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Aphaia

11:14 a.m.

Thanks Florence to notice us it. I have some questions, most are technical. On Dec 22, 2007 6:47 PM, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:

...

1. It means you updated bylaws? If I recall correctly it said the Board of Trustees shall be nine at maximum. If updatred, is there any other part you have/are considering to update bylaws? 2. "at least half of new members will be appointed": are those new members including two replacements? (11-5)/2 and (9-7)/2 are not same so I would be happy to have it clarify. 3. What made you decide to expand it to 11, not 9 originally planned? What the current Board of Trustees expect those two additional seats make difference from the original plan? Cheers, -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

11:23 a.m.

On 12/22/07, Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Florence to notice us it. I have some questions, most are technical. On Dec 22, 2007 6:47 PM, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:

My understanding (though Florences reply makes me doubt my interpretation a bit) was that "at least half of new members will be appointed for a term at the next board elections, in june 2008." ( a bit more context with the quote ), meant that though most appointed seats would be of a longer duration to be confirmed by the board, those appointed only until the next board elections would be elected seats after that.

...

3. What made you decide to expand it to 11, not 9 originally planned? What the current Board of Trustees expect those two additional seats make difference from the original plan?

-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

11:57 a.m.

On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:

...

I just did a double-take; re-reading what aphaia wrote below... Surely, but surely, it cannot be that the idea is to have a final outcome that a minority of the seats will be those elected from the community. I really, really hope that "commitment to involve members from the community" is not language which is just a nice way of saying community will be given a minority stake in the board, with the majority being decided by a view on other kinds of considerations. Please do clarify as soon as possible. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Sebastian Moleski

1:47 p.m.

On Dec 22, 2007 12:57 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I really, really hope that "commitment to involve members from the community" is not language which is just a nice way of saying community will be given a minority stake in the board, with the majority being decided by a view on other kinds of considerations.

Just as a comment: having "members from the community in the board" does not necessarily equate to having "members elected by the community". Sebastian

Brianna Laugher

1:56 p.m.

On 22/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:

Given that a community election cannot be organised with a snap of the fingers, is it not reasonable to appoint members for the five months until the next scheduled election? (If http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008 is correct and it is June 1-14) Seems like a good strategy to me... cheers Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

2:05 p.m.

On 12/22/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 22/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:

effe iets anders

2:21 p.m.

Please note that there are more ways to have community involvement then by voting process. As a Wikipedian, you should recognize that. Community seats do not *have* to be voted upon, although that might be the most logical choise. However, if there is not much time, there are several possibilities to appoint people from the community as a board member while they have community backup. BR, Lodewijk 2007/12/22, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On 12/22/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 22/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote: > > Dear community > > > > The board recently passed a resolution, which you will find below > > > > In the aftermath of the resignation of Michael Davis (effective

october

> > 31th, 2007) and Erik Moëller (effective december 15th, 2007), the

board

> > confirms its will to replace the two former board members, as well

> > its committment to expand the number of members on the board of > > directors at the earliest convenience, up to a number of 11 members > > maximum. Due to its commitment to involve members from the

community, at

> > least half of the new members will be appointed for a term ending at

the

> > next board elections, in june 2008. > > I just did a double-take; re-reading what aphaia wrote below... > > Surely, but surely, it cannot be that the idea is to have a final

outcome

that a minority of the seats will be those elected from the community.

Well, that just begs the question, given that the elections cannot be organized in a hurry, why would there be an unseemly hurry to expand the board, without community involvement? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

jeroenvrp

4:06 p.m.

Op zaterdag 22 december 2007 om 15:21, schreef effe iets anders:

...

Is it not possible to use the results from the last board-election, to fill up the remaining seats? Jeroenvrp

effe iets anders

4:44 p.m.

I assume this is one of the possibilities the Board is currently considering :) Many ways lead to Rome. BR, Lodewijk 2007/12/22, jeroenvrp <jeroenvrp(a)xs4all.nl>nl>:

...

Op zaterdag 22 december 2007 om 15:21, schreef effe iets anders:

Please note that there are more ways to have community involvement then

voting process. As a Wikipedian, you should recognize that. Community

seats

do not *have* to be voted upon, although that might be the most logical choise. However, if there is not much time, there are several

possibilities

to appoint people from the community as a board member while they have community backup.

Is it not possible to use the results from the last board-election, to fill up the remaining seats? Jeroenvrp