[Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Well then you can adjust it. This is just meant to be a start



----- Original Message ----
From: Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:57:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Thoughts/Complaints/Concerns?
>

1st thoughts: Why? What purpose is this resolution meant to serve? Is that
purpose best served by this resolution or are there other, more suitable
approaches? What are the likely side effects and unintended consequences?

2nd thoughts: From a technical perspective, all board members are appointed.
The elections are (albeit very strong) recommendations on who should be on
the board. How does the resolution fit into this framework?

3rd thoughts: When drafting resolutions, one generally uses "should" to
express something that "would be nice to have" and "shall" to express what
is to and will be done. Therefore, in the first resolved clause, it should
say "shall be amended".

4th thoughts: Another technical question remains open with what is to happen
between the irregular vacancy of an elected member's seat and a
corresponding interim appointment when during that period the portion of
appointed members might exceed 1/3.

Sebastian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs