No subject

role in the projects is in my opinion as bad an idea.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 7/14/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/14/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/14/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There are currently seven seats.
> > >
> > > Three are held by appointed members (Jimbo, Michael, Jan-Bart) and
> > > their terms expire on 31 December this year. From that time onwards,
> > > appointed members are appointed for terms of one year.
> > >
> > > Three are held by elected members (Erik, Kat, Frieda) who were just
> > > elected yesterday, their terms last for two years, and will expire on
> > > 30 June 2009.
> > >
> > > The odd one out is Ant, who was an elected member whose term was due
> > > to end 30 June this year, but she was converted to an appointed member
> > > at the last board expansion with a term expiring on 30 June 2008. At
> > > that time, Ant's appointed seat will be replaced by an elected seat.
> > >
> > > I anticipate (based on the most recent Board expansion resolution)
> > > that the Board will expand to nine members at that time, adding
> > > another two community elected seats, with terms commencing 1 July
> > > 2008. This will result in two tranches of three elected members
> > > serving two year terms, beginning on 1 July, offset from each other by
> > > one year, and one tranche of appointed members with one year terms
> > > beginning on 1 January each year.
> > >
>
>
> Fixing inadvertent top posting...
>
> >Hoi,
> >I have supported and do support that employees and ex-employees should
> not
> >be eligible to stand for an elected function of the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >Ex-employees would become eligible again after a year.
>
> >This original point was made in an e-mail on the Foundation list by
> >Jan-Bart.
>
> >Thanks,
> >    GerardM
>
> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029433.html
>
> A year long cooling period, perhaps even one year and a half for good
> measure, sounds at first hearing like a capital idea.
>
> However, this does open theoretical avenues for abuse... strictly
> theoretical mind you...
>
> To take a perfectly hypothetical case. Let us say the foundation
> board members are worried that notorious troublemaker Tweedledee
> is going to run for board of trustees membership. And despite his
> tendency to rouffle feathers, or perhaps because of it, they fear
> Tweedledee might easily do well in the elections, maybe even get
> in.
>
> So the trustees have a bright idea! They hire Tweedledee,  as an
> employee in charge of paperclips and hand him a red stapler
> giving him a desk at the basement of the foundation office.
>
> Now, there is a rule that there is an X month quarantine
> during which former employees may not run for elected
> office.
>
> So,  X minus one months before the election, they fire Tweedledee,
> ensuring that Tweedledee may only run after X minus one months
> plus the term between elections.
>
> I grant this is purely hypothetical. But to be quite serious, so is it
> quite hypothetical to presume that a former employee running
> for a board of trustees position would be deleterious to the
> boards functioning. In fact one might equally argue that having
> been in contact with the board intimately, they might even
> have a shorter period of acclimatisation and orientation for
> their position as trustee. (I am sure Oscar might be able to tell us if
> he needed much time to adjust to the ways the board worked
> coming from the outside, and why not the other board members
> current and past too)
>
>
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>