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

[Geoffrey Plourde]

I like the advisory board as a place for experts, but I see no problem with experts as trustees provided they are accountable.



----- Original Message ----
From: Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:27:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have a seperate body in place, such as the VC, there might be no need
>  for such requirement, as there would be another way to control the
>  foundtaion more directly. We should not put these requirements in just to
>  put them in, but only if they are useful. Therefore, I think it is best to
>  await the developments on the VC side. There seems to be no hurry with
>  regards to the number of volunteers anyway?

Community control over WMF bodies is necessary whatever is number of
those bodies. If someone made bad decisions, they should be
responsible at the next elections. This is an extremely simple
principle of representative democracy. However, this is not
implemented coherently in the bylaws.

And this may be implemented in (at least) three ways: (1) To give the
right to the elected members to appoint and remove expert members, (2)
to limit powers and proportion of the appointed members or (3) to move
all expertize out of the Board, to payed professionals (I prefer this
option).

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


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ