[Foundation-l] Nominating Committee

Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 25 17:35:24 UTC 2011

To clarify my position, I found the procedure as designed for handling appointed seats to be inherently unworkable. I don't think the procedures could have been followed during my service on the committee given the resources and time available. I imagine idealists will disagree with that assessment, but I feel energy is best directed to revising the by-laws for a more pragmatic process.


On Jun 25, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> I read from several posts that the process with the nominating committee did
> not work out at all. In the mean time the whole nominating committee (and
> therefore any formal procedure where non-board members, read: the community,
> have any say on who gets onto the board in the appointed seat). I might have
> missed it (probably have) but is there some kind of evaluation of the
> functioning of the NomCom and a good reasoning why it was totally abolished?
> Is it clear /why/ it did not work?
> Birgitte seems to suggest it didnt work because procedures were not
> followed. Earlier (don't recall where exactly) (a) board member(s) seemed to
> suggest that it did not work because they were too slow and did not do their-laws
> job. Both arguments seem to me something that can be solved quite easily -
> by starting to follow procedures or by getting different people on the
> committee.
> Perhaps someone who was there on the board at the time could clarify?
> Thanks a lot,
> Lodewijk
> 2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
>> On 06/24/2011 07:57 PM, Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I also sat on NomCom during this time period. I cannot agree that Matt's
>> appointment was more problematic than Stu's or Jan-Bart.  Frankly all the
>> appointed board seats are problematic, and I cannot understand how you can
>> focus on Matt's appointment alone as a significant issue, nor how you reach
>> the conclusion that disorganization on the part of the board had any
>> significant role in the problems of appointed board seats.
>>> I am going to be frank and clear about how the issue appears to me: The
>> bylaws, in regard to appointed board seats, are unredeemably flawed.
>>> I find it offensive that any appointed Board Member should be singled out
>> and undermined merely because an impossible appointment process failed to
>> offer them greater legitimacy. All the appointments fell so far short of the
>> outlined process that I believe concluding one appointment to be less
>> acceptable than the others is impossible to objectively judge. Yes
>> Bishakha's seat was settled with more active discussion from NomCom than any
>> of the others.  However the outlined process for appointed seats is not at
>> all what occurred.  I suggest you re-read the by-laws (pay attention to the
>> time-line as well), consult your notes and dates, and honestly tell me how
>> the board might have believed that NomCom had any hope fulfilling the
>> official process at the time of Matt's appointment.
>> That's other issue and I am not a legal expert.
>> My logic behind suggesting to keep current members was probability that
>> changing them would bring more instability in already unstable Board at
>> that time. Board is today more stable than it was at that time and it is
>> good that this issue has been opened, so we can go further.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the foundation-l mailing list