I think the scepticism, certainly from my point of view, is not in the idea of having a substitute member but in the idea of using the results of one vote to decide on a new issue. I think it is possible that if we had been voting for two members plus a substitute the voting pattern may have been different. I don't know that it is so of course, and perhaps the closeness of the final result indicates that it wouldn't have been - but my belief in the principle is strong. I do know that my own vote was influenced in part by the number of people we were voting for.
A straightforward ratification vote would be too limited in my view (from my understanding of how this might work). A "yes/no" vote would not allow for other possibilities, such as a holding a new vote specifically for this position with more than one candidate. Perhaps a wider vote on the issues might be helpful (although I'm aware of the problem of too many votes).
-- sannse
(copied privately to Erik)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Erik as backup trustee
Since several people have expressed skepticism about doing this I withdraw my support for this approach (substitute trustee). It would have questionable legitimacy, and I don't want that.
I will take a wiki vacation for about two weeks and then I will decide how and whether I will continue to participate in Wikimedia. I may make edits here and there but I won't be watching the mailing lists so if there's anything important please contact me at my other email address, moeller@scireview.de
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l