[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Jan 11, 2008 1:54 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jussi-ville is exactly right. Who will police the board? The board
> themselves? Riight. If the board were to become corrupted, there would
> be no check on them.

We could reach a certain level of paranoia that is really absurd. The
better idea is to mandate qualifications on who can become a board
member in the first place, mandate that the community must have a hand
in electing the majority of the board, and limit terms to something
reasonable. It may also be worth adding the restriction that the board
cannot appoint it's own members, except perhaps in some extenuated
circumstances (mass resignation, etc).

If we had "police" for the board, then who would oversee these police?
what if the police became corrupt? If we are sufficiently paranoid,
there are simply no acceptable solutions. We need to have faith in the
board members we elect, and take solace in the fact that terms are
time-limited.

--Andrew Whitworth