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

[Geoffrey Plourde]

OK, no problem. I just wasn't sure which portion was relevant. 


----- Original Message ----
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:21:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

>  BE IT RESOLVED; That Article IV, Section 3 (B) be amended through the addition of the following text;

It shouldn't be done by amending section 3 (B), it should be done by
amending section 3 (D), since that's the part that addresses this
issue:

"(D) The majority of the Board shall be elected or appointed from
within the community."

Basically, just removing the "or appointed" part (and adding something
to take care of interim members). I think a majority is plenty, there
is no need for it to be 2/3. Having it as 2/3 reduces the number of
professionals and experts we can have and they play an important role.

There is a slight issue in working out how to make the elections
binding on the board - at the moment they are purely advisory as I
understand it. The format of the elections is also at the boards
discretion which isn't great - it should be written into the bylaws
(which the board can change, of course, but there's not a lot that can
be done about that - the required majority to amend the bylaws could
be increased, I suppose).

I do think it would be good, just in case, to have the board obliged
to have members actually elected by the community, not just appointed
from it.

_______________________________________________
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