[Foundation-l] About transparency

[Anthony]

On Dec 30, 2007 8:05 AM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 12/30/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote
>
> > 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.