Hoi,
You misrepresent what is proposed. What is proposed is that employees and
ex-employees for a period of one year are not eligible to stand for the
position of board member.
As a consequence your whole argument does not address the issue.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7/16/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/07/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
There are
many more scenarios which are not beneficial. On the other
hand there are also benefits, I happen to think that the disadvantages
are not as large as the benefits.
I can come up with a million scenarios in which a former employee
makes a bad candidate, and a million more in which a non-employee
makes a bad candidate. If I had to try to balance the benefits and
detriments I'd guess that former employees would tend to make *better*
board members, however I don't think it matters anyway. As long as
it's reasonably foreseeable that a former employee might make a good
board member, the rules shouldn't be prejudiced against them.
Indeed.
We're trying to write a rule here to avoid the potential harm from a
malicious or troublemaking ex-employee. I think that, on the whole,
the disadvantages (incompetent or evil) are a) pretty rare, and b) the
sort of thing that an election process tends to work against anyway.
We're not proposing a rule to say "bad candidates shouldn't run",
we're proposing one which says "all of this group are bad candidates
and shouldn't run". And that's really not a good idea for any group
which has the potential to produce good candidates - indeed, it's easy
to imagine a hypothetical excellent candidate coming out of that.
But the handy thing is, we have a little referendum on this. We had a
chance to ask the community, indirectly, "can an ex-employee be a
decent candidate?"
And whilst I do accept this isn't "about Danny", perhaps you will
pardon this note: 29.2% of the community who registered an opinion
thought that an outspoken ex-employee was worthy of a seat on the
board. We appointed people on 30.1%. On the whole, the difference in
votes between Frieda, Oscar, Michael and Danny was in the noise - it
was virtually chance deciding which one of them won. There isn't
overwhelming support there, but neither is there any kind of deep
distrust.
I am *deeply* uncomfortable with us setting a rule which says "three
tenths of the community voted in ways we don't think they should
have".
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l