[Foundation-l] Policy governance ends

[Jeff V. Merkey]

GerardM wrote:

>Hoi,
>Anthere when the next elections happen, it will be vitally important that
>the people on the board work together well. The WMF is overworked and
>underfunded. There is not really time to wage wars. There is too much to do.
>
>Danny indicated that he wants to be considered for a post of the board. He
>stated that he would not discuss his own behaviour, why he chose to resign,
>until the start of his campaign for board membership. Given his sniping, his
>campaign has started. Given the negative campaign Danny is waging, I cannot
>see him becoming a positive force on the board. Given that he did not want
>to discuss why he resigned in a positive way, I can only urge people to
>consider if a negative campaign can make a positive politician. It would
>also be good to consider if we need politicians or if we need managers who
>people the board of our foundation.
>
>It was my pleasure to vote for you when I had the opportunity. I think you
>do great work. I think you have done great work and I hope the quality of
>the people on the board will only get better and not worse.
>
>Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
>  
>
Hi Gerard,

I would not hold out Danny's resigning as any sort of statement on 
whether or not he would be a good
Board member. People resign from employment for various reasons, 
disagreements over decisions, policy, etc. and given
that Danny was a Foundation employee at the time, the facts and issues 
that led to his frustration seem
unrelated to whether or not he would be a good board member. Danny has a 
depth of knowledge about
historical issues that affect all the projects and a unique viewpoint 
that could be beneficial. I am not one any side
here one way or the other -- I am neutral. And as a neutral observer, 
Danny could still bring a lot of insight into
some of these issues.

Try not to paint it as some sort of popularity contest -- people for 
some odd reason get too hung up on the
"popularity" aspects. The question should be:

1. Would Danny be able to contribute constructively.
2. Does he posses a large body of historical knowledge that would be 
useful to leverage.
3. Can he bring positive growth, financially or in other ways to improve 
the projects.
4. Can he work constructively with the other Board members.

These criteria would be my basis for evaluating him as a board member, 
and not personal history
or his past disagreements with the various personalities. People 
sometimes do things based on the heat
of the moment they regret, and cannot undo them for various reasons, but 
that does not mean they cannot
change or detract from their core value.

Jeff