[Foundation-l] Some views with regard to current discussion
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Fri Apr 20 05:29:12 UTC 2007
Board members may be re-elected. This is explicit in the rules of this game.
A board member build up his/her initial reputation in their own time and
then got elected. By doing a good job they maintain this reputation.
Therefore their reputation is their own doing. The community value is, that
by selecting a known good board member for a next term in office we have the
option to choose for stability in our organisation.
When you say that it is an advantage to them in an election, damn right, but
it is their community reputation, their reputation as a board member. There
is even a word for someone who is up for re-election: "incumbent" and
incumbents are known to have an advantage. It is good for the system.
On 4/20/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/04/07, Jan-Bart de Vreede <wiki at devreede.net> wrote:
> > 4) Several positions with the foundation office allow people to get a
> > lot of exposure within the community as part of their duties. One of the
> > unfortunate aspects of elections is that a lot of people simply vote for
> > "known" candidates without always considering their plans or vision.
> > This means that if a former employee runs for the board, he or she has
> > effectively used foundation time and money to build their support, that
> > does not seem right.
> Extending your logic here just a bit, this would seem to suggest that
> current board members should not be able to run in future elections
> either, because they have unfairly benefited from their exposure as a
> result of this position. Which I don't think would go down too well
> with the board members.
> ~Mark Ryan
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
More information about the foundation-l