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

[effe iets anders]

although off topic here:
because it gives a signal by the board that they are willing.
because it gives a clear timeline
because it gives a little pressure
because this report would not be "just a report"

BR, Lodewijk

2008/3/17, Nathan <nawrich op gmail.com>:
>
> 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 op 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 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>