On 1 February 2012 18:17,
Theo10011<de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM,
Risker<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the
running of the WMF,
Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more
effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than
would community-elected Wikimedians.
Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as
well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly
unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised
why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on
every new appointment?
The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting
process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members.
The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise
and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to
fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they
require.
The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used,
what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected
for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is "the
same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well
known and widely active in the community".
Risker/Anne
As in... Michael Snow ?
Who is a fabulous guy, ran in community election, and was turned down ?
Florence