Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 1/11/08, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I am sorry, but the minutes of the meeting do not square with what you say there. According to the minutes - while there may not have been consensus - there was a clear majority vote in favour of setting a symmetrical 6 month exlusion period for transitions both board -> staff and staff -> board.
Actually, my memory of the discussion was that Jan-Bart was more in favor of a 12 months waiting period... but the minutes report 6 months... which means at least 2 members were not fully happy. And Jimbo's opinion was missing. In any cases, we tend to try to reach consensus when it is seems best to. There was a weak consensus or a slight disagreement.
Okay, just out of curiosity here, maybe I am dredging out something you might not want to revisit, but I recall Angela resigning from the board, because she was disillusioned with the way the board was in fact quite decidedly steered away from consensus driven decision making.
Can we now construe this statement by you, Florence Devouard, that steering away from consensus driven decision making on the board was a mistake?
I have always been a supporter of decisions taken by consensus rather than votes. You may remember heated discussions on this matter in the past. I must also admit that consensus is not always the best choice, when decisions drag forever. In a legal organization, we can not always drag forever. We have to move on.
This said, I already stated to Angela that I was sorry of what lead her to resign.
And (also by the text of the minutes that is published - seems there are
some
edits there that are discussing later developements rather than what
transpired
at the meeting itself; which is probably illustrative in a positive fashion, even though it confuses the text of the minutes as a document of a specific
event)
specifically Erik was tasked with drafting the resolution; which after
inquiring
with Mike, (someone, not clear who) decided that it was a bylaws matter,
not
a resolution matter.
I have vague memories. I think Mike recommanded to have it a bylaws update.Yes Note that voting a resolution can be real quick and straightforward. Bylaws update is a little bit more demanding.
Well, this is very not clear, as you can well imagine. Maybe in addition of minutes, you should make private notes, so your memories are not so vague. The order of events here is very important, and quite decidedly obfuscated in the preceding paragraph.
In october 2007, I was the chair of this organization. Not its secretary. It is not very easy to chair a two days meetings, be involved in the discussion as well AND take notes. I beg your pardon, but I think this is exactly why there are two positions, secretary and chair.
Was Erik tasked with drafting a resolution, or was Erik tasked with asking Mike how and/or if such a resolution could be drafted, and or what happened after that... really, I can ascribe many possible chains of events that square well with people doing their best to clarify the situation, but vague statements don't improve my ability to believe any one of them actually took place.
The best to do will be to ask the secretary.
I think you got EC:s suggestion backwards. His idea was that the board would propose and decide, but the council would approve. It isn't implicit what would happen if the council would vote down a decided change in the bylaws. As I see it, the disapproval would not mean the change could not be implemented by the board, but it might usefully force the board to reconsider, and re-vote on it. This is a very usual parliamentary
custom.
ok I think it would put a very huge pressure on the wikicouncil constitution...
Well, I think the question is do you really want a wikicouncil, or a wikipoodle?
What is a wikipoodle ?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l