[Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF & Bitcoins)
millosh at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 01:54:06 UTC 2011
On 06/24/2011 01:58 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
> It also wasn't an easy decision to make. The question came down to
> this one: do we necessarily refuse someone as a candidate solely
> because they were proposed by a funder?
As a Nominating committee  member, I have to say a few words about
this time, as NomCom was in function at the time of Matt's appointment.
Sorry, but I have to say this: I was and I am much more worried about
Board's collective dilettantism than about hidden agenda.
Most importantly, there were rules which *Board* was made about
necessary qualifications. Summarized (the bottom of the page ), it was:
* fundraising experience
* 501(c)3 governance experience / board development / non-profit law
* deep knowledge and experience outside North America and Europe
* gender equ[al]ity
I mean, those were Board's rules and after NomCom suggested to the Board
to keep current members (at that point, Stu and Jan-Bart) for the sake
of continuity, NomCom members started to qualify candidates with numbers
from one to four, according to their qualities.
There were, of course, some unacceptable candidates, no matter how
strong they were, but our work created a wishlist, and we could go from
the best placed, to the bottom.
According to the rules created by the Board, Matt would get 2 from the
most of us (no "deep knowledge and experience outside North America and
Europe", nothing related to the gender equality -- he is not a woman, as
well as he is not women-rights activist) and he wouldn't pass. We had a
lot of 4s and 3s in the list.
The second very problematic issue is that NomCom wasn't asked about
Matt's appointment (AFAIK, we knew the fact two days before it was
publicly announced), while we had a small (and positive) discussion
about Bishakha more than half year later.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't have anything against Matt and it is
likely that I would support him because of the similar reason why I
supported Stu to stay at the Board. (Although, unlike the cases of Stu
and Bishakha are, I am presently very unsure about Matt's contribution
to WMF and I would like to hear it. It is possible that I've missed some
of his emails and actions.)
However, the most important issue in relation to all of those
appointments is that Board itself was highly disorganized. I mean, why
to organize NomCom when the only product of NomCom's work was to propose
keeping current members and not to do anything else? Why making rules
and then at the first occasion nullify them?
So, in relation to the question "do we necessarily refuse someone as a
candidate solely because they were proposed by a funder?" -- I would say
that we had a lot of other candidates and that it was far from being a
More information about the foundation-l