On Dec 30, 2007 8:05 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 12/30/07, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com>
And you did not reject it because of your
previous commitment to a six-month
waiting period, which was voted on unanimously by the Board just 2 and a
half weeks earlier. (Kat voted for six months for Board-->Staff, but seems to
have rejected Staff-->Board).
I see no reason why any decision for transitions to Board or Staff
should not be made on its merits until a specific policy governing
such transitions in place. We're in the middle of a relocation and the
setup of a new office, and part of Sue's desire to bring me in is to
have me help with the orientation of new staff: These goals would be
impeded by waiting for 6 months to join.
We are not talking about a complete restriction of such transitions,
after all, only about a delay; if the discussion had focused on
eliminating even the possibility of Board members joining the staff or
vice versa, it would be much more problematic.
OK, but you're not planning on waiting six months to become deputy
director, are you?
Your position has changed, right? If so, I don't have a problem with
that, as I think it's a bad policy proposal to begin with, as you have
now seen first hand. And putting it into the bylaws will make such a
policy even more problematic.