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

[Nathan]

Effe, if the purpose of this initial group is only to issue a report on the
need and viability and potential structure of a future group, why not just
have it be called a steering committee of some sort, organize the people you
think are helpful and interested, and issue a report with your names on it
after talking to other people and forming up some more fully fleshed out
ideas? Why go through the agita of a proposal and a debate and all the rest,
when what you really seem to want is to get a group of people together to
hash out what they want to propose - and then start the debate?

Nathan

On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 at gmail.com>:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>