[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Dan Rosenthal]

But we're not talking about extreme levels of paranoia here. We're  
talking about a simple concept here. A small organization is always  
reluctant to eliminate one of their own. That gets even more difficult  
when you make that organization self-policed. There must be some  
outside system of checks and balances to prevent corruption within  
that group. This may be foreign to non-americans, but to us it is  
integral.

-Dan
On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2008 1:54 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jussi-ville is exactly right. Who will police the board? The board
>> themselves? Riight. If the board were to become corrupted, there  
>> would
>> be no check on them.
>
> We could reach a certain level of paranoia that is really absurd. The
> better idea is to mandate qualifications on who can become a board
> member in the first place, mandate that the community must have a hand
> in electing the majority of the board, and limit terms to something
> reasonable. It may also be worth adding the restriction that the board
> cannot appoint it's own members, except perhaps in some extenuated
> circumstances (mass resignation, etc).
>
> If we had "police" for the board, then who would oversee these police?
> what if the police became corrupt? If we are sufficiently paranoid,
> there are simply no acceptable solutions. We need to have faith in the
> board members we elect, and take solace in the fact that terms are
> time-limited.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l