Somebody wrote:
I personally don't like the veto system. It is uncomfortable both for the board *and* the people involved. Pool to choose from is much better.
Personally I think this is a very incorrect approach.
It can tend to mask crony networks.
Having to veto the choices, nominations, or elected candidates will inevitably show a trend if cronyism or factionalism gets established. This process should be about getting effective managers/governers/leaders that the "community" accepts as effective and in whom the legal trustees can be equally confident. The ideal incoming leader is percieved as effective in both key roles, operations within the foundation and content creation or other valuable community tasks.
Might be feasible in other organizations but considering that we start from a crony network currently in charge how will allowing the crony network to wait until an appropriate crony or someone they like who might someday become a crony to become available in the "pool" restore any confidence of fair representation in the rest of the community at large?
Might as well save time and energy and have the Board or Jimbo appoint their buddies in the first place.
Regarding discomfort. It is no more comfortable for people nominated to hang around waiting indefinately for a call that will never come than it is to be told firmly no, you are not accepted for the position.
This is why most well run companies or organizations will eventually send a letter of some kind telling aspiring candidates that there is no place currently open or another interviewee was selected for the position. Thank you for your interest and time.
regards, lazyquasar