On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
Two board members are selected by chaptersl
however, the board has
certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates.
Chapter-selected candidates
will
be appointed in 2012.
The WMF-wide community holds an election in odd-numbered years to
nominate
three candidates. Again, the board has certain
rights to refuse the
candidates with the most votes.
The remainder of the board members are selected for their expertise, with
the exception of the "Founder" seat which is approved on a regular basis.
The primary responsibility of Board members is to the Foundation, not to
the
community or the chapters or to any other
external agent.
I find this response a bit odd. ;-) It almost seems to assume that the
community (or Nathan?) is likely wanting to elect someone the WMF
couldn't accept, or that "responsibility to the community" is a bad
thing, while we used to say only that there's no imperative mandate and
that chapters-elected trustees are not chapters representatives, etc.
I'm not sure what you find odd about it, but it is factual.
The key point is that board members must work on behalf of the Foundation,
and must not act as representatives of a particular constituency, and those
constituencies cannot direct board members elected/nominated by them to act
in certain ways.
I agree that it is not entirely relevant to this discussion: the board's
statement on controversial content was issued in May, and all three
community-nominated board members who signed off on that statement were
re-elected subsequent to that.
Risker/Anne