Hi,
I read from several posts that the process with the nominating committee did
not work out at all. In the mean time the whole nominating committee (and
therefore any formal procedure where non-board members, read: the community,
have any say on who gets onto the board in the appointed seat). I might have
missed it (probably have) but is there some kind of evaluation of the
functioning of the NomCom and a good reasoning why it was totally abolished?
Is it clear /why/ it did not work?
Birgitte seems to suggest it didnt work because procedures were not
followed. Earlier (don't recall where exactly) (a) board member(s) seemed to
suggest that it did not work because they were too slow and did not do their-laws
job. Both arguments seem to me something that can be solved quite easily -
by starting to follow procedures or by getting different people on the
committee.
Perhaps someone who was there on the board at the time could clarify?
Thanks a lot,
Lodewijk
2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
On 06/24/2011 07:57 PM, Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com
wrote:
I also sat on NomCom during this time period. I
cannot agree that Matt's
appointment was more problematic than Stu's or
Jan-Bart. Frankly all the
appointed board seats are problematic, and I cannot understand how you can
focus on Matt's appointment alone as a significant issue, nor how you reach
the conclusion that disorganization on the part of the board had any
significant role in the problems of appointed board seats.
I am going to be frank and clear about how the issue appears to me: The
bylaws, in
regard to appointed board seats, are unredeemably flawed.
I find it offensive that any appointed Board Member should be singled out
and
undermined merely because an impossible appointment process failed to
offer them greater legitimacy. All the appointments fell so far short of the
outlined process that I believe concluding one appointment to be less
acceptable than the others is impossible to objectively judge. Yes
Bishakha's seat was settled with more active discussion from NomCom than any
of the others. However the outlined process for appointed seats is not at
all what occurred. I suggest you re-read the by-laws (pay attention to the
time-line as well), consult your notes and dates, and honestly tell me how
the board might have believed that NomCom had any hope fulfilling the
official process at the time of Matt's appointment.
That's other issue and I am not a legal expert.
My logic behind suggesting to keep current members was probability that
changing them would bring more instability in already unstable Board at
that time. Board is today more stable than it was at that time and it is
good that this issue has been opened, so we can go further.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: