--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
... I would be happy that we begin thinking of how we could "give" these "official titles" to participants, so that they can fully help according to their abilities and wilingness.
I think that this a very good idea. But it will require a change in the bylaws. However since the bylaws cannot be finalized until after two more trustees take their positions and vote on them, I don't think this will be a problem so long as the right people get elected.
I've already stated, several times in the past, that the roles of trustee and the roles of corporate officers should be divorced from one another. This is needed in order to provide proper checks and balances (the board oversees the officiers and the foundation membership oversees the board).
Basically, it requires 3 steps
- setting up a list of "official titles", with
associated description of what this encompasses
Example : Wikimedia treasurer : someone to keep track of donations or other funding, and keep track of how money is spent
Example : Public relations : someone who organise press releases, give interviews, etc. Trying to find funding probably comes in here.
Nod.
We should set this list all together. There is already some stuff written about this on meta, but it was more planned for a board. Since the board will be very small, we should expand this to wikimedia (full) or foundation (those who paid the fee) participants.
The list could be approved by the Board.
I agree that the board should appoint officers from a self-selected candidate list.
- Enlisting people for each role.
Several if necessary. We obviously need only one treasurer for now; But definitly several public relation officials. Given Wikipedia concept, I don't think we need a head for PR, the community is the head, but we definitly do need at least a dozen people as PR officials.
Nod.
I view this as fairly loose. Let's have a page on meta. People interested list themselves there. The community then approve or does not approve to give this "official" title. Finally, the board approve or not.
I strongly feel that it should be the other way around; the board appoints officers and the foundation membership either approves or disapproves the appointees. This provides a check against merely popular people being appointed to positions they are not qualified to perform. The board members themselves are the ones that are directly elected. Thus they are the ones legally responsible for their appointees.
- Last, on Wikimedia Foundation web site, we maintain
a list of these official representative. Something very official looking, so that an "official representative" can point a potential partner this page to "prove" he is trusted by his peers for negociation.
Nod.
What do you think ?
With a few minor changes as I noted, I think it is a great idea.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover