[Foundation-l] Policy governance ends
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Wed Apr 18 18:28:14 UTC 2007
Danny made the reasons why he resigned political by refusing to discuss them
until the "start" of the board elections. He implied criticism by deferring
all issues to the future. He explicitly refused to discuss the issues and
consequently he is not part of a solution. By discussing things as and when
they happen, you allow for improvements. This would also have made Danny's
behaviour transparent and he would at least be seen to mean well.
Other people have remarked on the negativism that is clear from how he has
postured himself on the lists. This is negative and for me it reflects badly
on how I expect he will fit in on the WMF board. As to his experience, I am
not impressed with how Danny handled multiple signals he received about
potential donors. The amounts of money indicated were substantial. Nothing
positive happened for the WMF because there was no reaction from Danny at
all even though he was prodded in several ways.
Danny is certainly not a neutral observer, he evidently has an axe to grind
and he wants to become a board member. He wants to do that by running a
So given the questions that you ask and the answers I provide, I will not
vote for him. I would go further and encourage people to consider carefully
if there is not someone else more likely to fit in positively and have a
positive influence on our Foundation, perhaps the board members that are up
for re-election... them being known.. maybe even known good.
On 4/18/07, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey at wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> GerardM wrote:
> >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
> >Danny indicated that he wants to be considered for a post of the board.
> >stated that he would not discuss his own behaviour, why he chose to
> >until the start of his campaign for board membership. Given his sniping,
> >campaign has started. Given the negative campaign Danny is waging, I
> >see him becoming a positive force on the board. Given that he did not
> >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
> >people the board of our foundation.
> >It was my pleasure to vote for you when I had the opportunity. I think
> >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.
> > 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.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l