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

[Geoffrey Plourde]

My responses in blue



----- Original Message ----
From: Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:40:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

There are a few issues with this.

1)    The number of appointed - or as I strongly prefer - *unelected*
board members *should* be kept below 1/3rd. (or possibly 2/5ths - there are
valid reasons to invite experts who would not be drawn from a pool of
candidates who would stand for election - hence my consideration of a 40/60
split).

The 30/70 split I referenced was only a starting point, just to throw a number out. I have no objection to changing it to 35/65, or 40/60

2)    A new board member *may* be appointed to replace a departing elected
member, but only if their term is restricted to the period between
appointment and the next scheduled elections. This *should* be the normal
course of action.

This provision is meant to close the loophole of appointments to resignations.

3)    A new board member (or members) *must* be elected where the balance
of elected/unelected candidates is significantly impacted by the departure
of a board member. I.e. if unelected members become the majority due to
vacant seats, the vacant seats *must* be filled via a special election.


I almost added this provision, but I think that this is not really a issue because of the above provision
4)    Preference for those appointed to normally elected seats *should* be
given to candidates who are prepared to stand for a confirmatory election at
the appropriate time as opposed to those who would serve a short term.

I agree to the addition of this provision.

Note the *highlighted* terms. I have used the meaning explained in Internet
RFCs, which generally describe how a piece of software that implements a
protocol is expected behave.

*    may - this is optional.
*    must - this is mandatory.
*    should - this is very strongly recommended but not mandatory.

Please note that I meant this to be something to initiate discussion. I will be posting this to Meta sometime today. Feel to change the wording or modify it as consensus on text becomes apparent.

Geoff Plourde

Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 17 March 2008 15:10
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

>  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.

That can be fixed by rewording it to something along the lines of:
"The Board shall not appoint a new board member if it would bring the
total number of appointed board members to more than 1/3 of the total
membership of the board."

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


_______________________________________________
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