But we're not talking about extreme levels of paranoia here. We're talking about a simple concept here. A small organization is always reluctant to eliminate one of their own. That gets even more difficult when you make that organization self-policed. There must be some outside system of checks and balances to prevent corruption within that group. This may be foreign to non-americans, but to us it is integral.
-Dan On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 1:54 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l