I wonder what the rest of the Board thinks about this? I personally would prefer and ask that no document be signed by any board members without the unanimous consent of the Board, and that this not be presented as a requirement for any new Board members. Are there alternative versions of this statement? Are Mike and Sue open to reviewing alternative versions presented?
Nathan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/21/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
A controversial policy with no consequences creates more heat than light. It is one thing to have Board members sign an agreement, but it is an exercise in futility when that agreement extends three years beyond one's term of office without any idea about what will happen if a person is found in breach.
I agree with that. I was just trying to focus on the effect the policy would have on the wider community rather than the trustees who might sign it. So I was ignoring the reasons why it might be a bad idea for individual to sign such an agreement.
However I definitely understand why someone would not want to sign such a thing for their own part. In reality such individual concerns probably just become a starting point for a negotiation. Offer a proposal of what you would be willing to sign and then receive a counter proposal. And find the line where WMF agrees that trying to oust a board member or disqualify an election winner will bring more trouble than the differences between the drafts. And that is the arena of lawyers not the peanut gallery.
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l