Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Sat, July 14, 2007 19:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
I'll go further than that. The chapters being
active in the election
of board of trustees would in no way or shape of form create
legal liability for edits on the wikies run by the Foundation, any
more than a citizens action group promoting interest in some
national election would by this action assume legal liability for
passing the laws written by the governing body to which the
representatives were elected. I am sure you are the only one
reading this to whom this needs to be explained.
Here I must again disagree. Speaking for a moment as the Chair of the UK
Chapter, I would be *very* wary of our having a voice/vote in the
selection of the Board of the Foundation because, imho, it *would* create
a legal connection between us. Whilst there are certainly issues around
the responsibility for 'edits' on the projects, there is a greater
requirement that there is a clear separation of (legal) responsibilities
as might relate to the ownership and content of the projects. I, for one,
would not countenance a formal relationship of this kind.
I agree that caution is warranted. I find a very high level of legal
naïveté among some of our colleagues, and that can be frightening. In a
few areas, like copyright or defamation, the Community is relatively
conservative, but blissful ignorance prevails in far too many other
areas. The leadership in national chapters need to be aware of many
pitfalls.
Ec wrote:
I would have concerns about the intelligence of a
person who accepts a
job counting paperclips. I would quesion his suitability for a
responsible Board position, and let my vote be guided accordingly. :-)
My bigger concern would be for the Board; these are online projects so
what are the paperclips for! ;-P
Seriously though, I have absolutely no problem with former employees
seeking to become elected representatives on the Board. Just as Civil
servants in the UK are permitted to stand as councillors and MPs so long
as they resign their {local|state} government job first, so we should
welcome people who have been 'at the sharp end' in the Foundation and
still want to see it improve by working _voluntarily_ (rather than as a
_paid_ employee) to that end.
In some places they take an unpaid leave-of-absence when they stand, but
only need to resign if they are successful. This especially makes more
sense when a person is in a low level job.
I would be *very* concerned though about the reverse;
for someone to leave
the Board and then be appointed within weeks or months to a paid position
by the remaining board would, imho, be reprehensible and an unacceptable
way to proceed.
We agree on this.
Ec