On 7/17/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/07, Erik Moeller erik@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]]