[Foundation-l] [Announcement] board expansion

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > On 12/22/07, Florence Devouard <anthere at 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 october
> >> 31th, 2007) and Erik Moëller (effective december 15th, 2007), the board
> >> confirms its will to replace the two former board members, as well as
> >> 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 community, at
> >> least half of the new members will be appointed for a term ending at the
> >> next board elections, in june 2008.
> >>
> >> -----------
> >>
> >> Florence
> >
> > I think I am bound to say, if I understand the import of this resolution
> > correctly, that this decision is a very poor show indeed.
> >
> > Am I to really understand that the new seats which are "community
> > seats" will be initially filled by appointment? That is, not only will
> Eriks
> > seat which is temporally vacant because of his resignation be filled
> > pro tem by appointment, but the board will make a "designated
> > incumbent" decision on the other new "community seats" too, even
> > though there is no existing _vacancy_ to those seats.
> >
> > Some may think that the only problem here is that those people will
> > merely be "confirmed" by the community, not chosen by it, but that
> > is hardly the only problem with this fashion of working.
> >
> > It would not be unreasonable to assume in light of current goings on
> > that accepting such an appointment would be somewhat akin to
> > accepting a poisoned chalice, or a kiss of death.
> >
> > Being appointed by the current board, would mean that it may be
> > that the vote up or vote down of these new board members would
> > take some degree of being a vote on the current pre-existing board
> > and its legitimacy, and not merely on the persons of the appointed
> > people themselves. That would be a very unfortunate pass to see
> > ourselves at, and I would like to give the community more credit than
> > that, but it is not something I find entirely improbable.
> >
> > --
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> To be fair, I read your email 4 times and did not understand what you
> meant :-(
> Can you rephrase in a clearer fashion ?
>
> Ant

Okay. I will draw you a diagram.

Did you mean you will be in the very near future be appointing
six new members to the board (people chosen by the board)?

1 to replace Erik. (to be up for election later, with the appointed
person choosing whether to run or not for an elected term)

1 to replace Michael Davis (presumably to remain an appointed seat)

And a maximum of 4 new members to have either an appointed
seat or a temporary seat that will be a "community seat" which
will be up for election later, with the appointed temporary holder
of the seat having the option to stand for election or not.

Is that what will happen?

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]