@ Alex & the rest of us who have expressed the same sentiments
offline,i do agree with you that we were to review the bios & state
who is qualified , i want to be bold enough and say this ,,had we to
followed the so called the PSC deliberations ,only two or utmost 3
candidates would have been cleared for elections ,the by laws does not
expressly state the way forward ,we wanted to be guided by the spirit
& letter of our by laws,to have 3 candidates be elected for 5
positions is itself an constitutional crisis,Let us ask ourselves the
hard question>>>> to what extend is the PSC deliberations binding
...thats a subject of debate & don't want to debate,Our understanding
is that we are not slaves to those deliberations after all the laws
are meant for us to fix problems not the other way round ,i want to
believe that by doing what we did we din't overstep our mandate ,i
also wan't to echo Abbas sentiments that in future when we have
established the system structures ,things should be done differently &
moreso it should be entrenched in our by laws.
" The
sentiments expressed here does not in way reflect the position of the
electoral team''
Branton.
On 3/30/12, Abbas Mahmood <abbasjnr(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for that reminder, Alex.
Let me start by saying that we are a scrappy start-up with all the
experimentation and chaos that implies. We aren't a smoothly-sailing ship:
we're building our ship. That means that roles and responsibilities aren't
always clear, systems and procedures haven't been tested and refined over
time. This is quite normal for young organizations.
I do not think that what you just said will set a binding precedence since
the criteria for the eligibility of running for the board is not in the
bylaws. Whatever we do now is non-binding. Therefore, one can't come to us 5
years on, and force us to use the same procedure that we are using today.
I purposely left out such nitty-gritty elements out of the bylaws since I
know that with time, they are bound to change. That with each election year,
we will have gotten smarter about what kinds of people flourish as Board
Members and why. I therefore expect that with time, maturity, and once we
get bigger, Wikimedia Kenya will strive for continual improvement and be
able to refine its bylaws and have some binding voting criteria.
I am therefore willing to risk being lax this time round.
Abbas.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:51:54 -0700
From: oscar_okwero(a)yahoo.com
To: wikimediake(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Nominees Running for the Board - Presidence
Forward thinking i like this.
Okwero Oscar
--- On Fri, 3/30/12, Alex Wafula <xelawafs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Alex Wafula <xelawafs(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [Wikimedia Kenya] Nominees Running for the Board - Presidence
To: "Wikimediake Mailing List" <wikimediake(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Friday, March 30, 2012, 1:26 PM
Hi all,
The electrol team mentioned that they'd review bios of the nominees and
determine if they qualify to run as per our discussions here: [1], but I
don't think this has been done. I know this might seem as a dumper but it
would be sad if we created a precedence for this to happen in the future as
well.
I've only brought this up because it is something we agreed on as a team and
not as a means to disqualify some nominees. To the electrol team, Kindly
review this concern and post some feedback.
My advice, implement this [1] or review it not for individual but for the
betterment of WMKE. In short, we need to know the grounds under which people
qualify for candidacy.
[1].
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wikimedia-kenya-meet-up
regards,
Alex
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
WikimediaKE mailing list
WikimediaKE(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
_______________________________________________
WikimediaKE mailing list
WikimediaKE(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake