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

[effe iets anders]

as I said, there might be no need, even by your definition. It all depends
on the report and whether accepted by the board. So please do not act
hastely here and do not try to get everything done at once. Rome isn't biult
on one day either.

2008/3/17, Milos Rancic <millosh op gmail.com>:
>
> On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders op 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 op lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>