On 7/17/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/17/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/17/07, Erik Moeller
<erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Oscar resigned from his position as head of the Dutch chapter when he
joined the Board; Frieda will not stand for the presidency of the
Italian chapter again in November. This is not a "punishment", it is
simply a clear separation of roles that helps to avoid conflicts of
interest in many decision-making processes where chapters are
involved.
Indeed, that is quite on point, but not in they way you think. There is
no suggestion offered, nor do I think there will be, that people
involved
in chapter governance not run for the board of
trustees, untill having
been separated from that role for a year...
And there shouldn't be any such suggestion. Candidates running for
board positions are asked what their previous involvement with
non-profits was, chapters are in the large majority acting as
non-profits, I believe it makes no difference whether someone runs for
the board of the Wikimedia Foundation with an experience in being part
of Wikimedia chapter governance or SOS Children governance. Also,
would one prevent the CEO of <insert name of NGO here> to run for a
position in the board of the Foundation? I don't think so. Please
remember that Wikimedia Chapters and Wikimedia Foundation are
independant organisations. Being involved in the politics of one does
not necessarily meain being involved in the politic of the other.
Fully agreed.
Back to the subject at hand, as one of those that this change in
policy would effect, and although I understand
Brion's point, I tend
to agree with Jan-Bart and Erik, and especially Michael Snow's
suggestion of a six months cooling off (Andrew's word) between an
employee leaving the Foundation and their running for the board. It
might seem awkward for those of us who are already "in", as it would
yet come as something we didn't think about when we signed in to get
the job, but I do believe that it is a good firewall between board
governance and everyday executive matters, by providing on both parts
(that of the organisation and that of the individual), a little time
to put things in perspective.
Like I think I said in my first posting in this thread, I think a cooling
off
period is not in itself a bad idea; though I personally think it is best
done out of sympathy and compassion, rather than alarm. A "sabbatical"
is much preferred over the term "firewall" IMNSHO. And as for
length, 6 months is a pretty fair number.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]