The point is this: the board *must* represent the community but the board *must* be also the link between the community and the management (it's natural because the choice of the management is that any manager can be *not* wikipedian).
With a function of *control* of the board on the management's work the community can have *trust* on management's work.
In this vision I said that the role of treasurer is bigger than the role that a board's member can have, but if we are looking for a treasurer in a traditional point of view the treasurer must be a person outside the board (probably), but in this case he will be a member of the management.
Result: the management control himself, and this is not correct.
After the choice to take management's members from board's members it's clear that the management doesn't have the "memory" of Wikipedia and without an "osmosis" between the management and the board this "memory" cannot be easily reach.
Result: the risk is that the management cannot have the trust of the community and the community cannot recognize the management.
Ilario
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My own suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment. The six months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and show that he can communicate with the general membership.
Why would an appointed member ever have to seek election? The point of appointed members is to get people with specific skills the board requires, the point of election is to get people that can represent the community. They are distinct goals, and you shouldn't try and mix them. (Of course, if a member of the community has the required skills and can fulfil both roles, that's great.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l