Please note that there are more ways to have community involvement then by
voting process. As a Wikipedian, you should recognize that. Community seats
do not *have* to be voted upon, although that might be the most logical
choise. However, if there is not much time, there are several possibilities
to appoint people from the community as a board member while they have
2007/12/22, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 12/22/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/12/2007, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote:
> > Dear community
> > The board recently passed a resolution, which you will find below
> > In the aftermath of the resignation of Michael Davis (effective
> > 31th, 2007) and Erik Moëller (effective
december 15th, 2007), the
> > confirms its will to replace the two
former board members, as well
> > its committment to expand the number of
members on the board of
> > directors at the earliest convenience, up to a number of 11 members
> > maximum. Due to its commitment to involve members from the
> > least half of the new members will be
appointed for a term ending at
> > next board elections, in june 2008.
> I just did a double-take; re-reading what aphaia wrote below...
> Surely, but surely, it cannot be that the idea is to have a final
minority of the seats will be those elected from the community.
Given that a community election cannot be organised with a snap of the
fingers, is it not reasonable to appoint members for the five months
until the next scheduled election? (If
is correct and it
is June 1-14) Seems like a good strategy to me...
Well, that just begs the question, given that the elections cannot be
organized in a hurry, why would there be an unseemly hurry to
expand the board, without community involvement?
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list