On 05.09.2016 23:41, Asaf Bartov wrote:
You clearly have a strong and abiding interest in movement governance, and have been asking some good questions. You should have submitted your candidacy.[1]
To your point, I guess it can be taken as a reminder, but it does not seem to me that the appointments were made *so as to minimize* influence by less well-known figures. Rather, it seems to me there was a strong emphasis on suitability for the work expected from them (as distinct from other considerations, such as "representation"); it is, of course, easier to assess that suitability in people known to the people making the decision, so old hands do have some advantage, but it isn't *because* they've been around or because they are trusted not to disrupt or challenge the system.
Asaf, I believe in the announcements prior record of affiliation with WMF or one of the chapters was stated as an eligibility requirement. We should not be then surprised that only people with prior record of affiliation with WMF or one of the chapters were selected.
It is up to a debate whether this is the best strategy, but in the situation when out of the three community elected Board members only one is currently on the Board it could have been expected that the issue is sensitive.
Cheers Yaroslav