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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you have honest people who play an open hand of cards in a board /
committee, you will make people accountable in this board / committee. When
the board is made of cliques, you will have power games and consequently
accountability is out of the window because it is the game, the winning that
is at stake.

When you think that accountability is served by being voted in or out every
other year, you will not have a situation where the board members are
accountable for their own action or inaction. When they are accountable
within the board itself and when you make it possible for a board /
committee to expel board member exactly because they are accountable within
this organisational entity, only then will you have true accountability.

Really, accountability is not just we can vote you out in two years ...

Thanks,
    GerardN

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com>
wrote:

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