[Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[George Herbert]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia <shipmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
>> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
>> > bylaws
>> > to indicate that.
>> >
>> >
>> Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
>> positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
>> selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
>>
>> I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
>> community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad
>> as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still
>> means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters
>> are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
>> majority.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at
> large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
> responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to
> revoke their representation.
>
> Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
> representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is
> very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people
> belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise
> meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
> that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the
> definition of "community member") are members of chapters.  I have a hard
> time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.

The "chapters vs open community" question is entirely valid - however,
they're clearly from outside "The Foundation" and from "The Community"
writ large.

If it's felt that the chapters as an intermediary organizational role
aren't helpfully representing the wider community interests, then we
can more widely revisit if that's an appropriate or reasonable way to
elect those board members.

I am unconvinced that we have an actual problem here, but it's
entirely appropriate and on topic for Foundation-L to discuss this.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com