[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

Risker risker.wp at gmail.com
Sun Oct 9 16:58:00 UTC 2011

On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
> > Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has
> certain
> > rights to refuse the selected candidates.  Chapter-selected candidates
> will
> > be appointed in 2012.
> >
> > The WMF-wide community holds an election in odd-numbered years to
> nominate
> > three candidates. Again, the board has certain rights to refuse the
> > candidates with the most votes.
> >
> > The remainder of the board members are selected for their expertise, with
> > the exception of the "Founder" seat which is approved on a regular basis.
> >
> > The primary responsibility of Board members is to the Foundation, not to
> the
> > community or the chapters or to any other external agent.
> I find this response a bit odd. ;-) It almost seems to assume that the
> community (or Nathan?) is likely wanting to elect someone the WMF
> couldn't accept, or that "responsibility to the community" is a bad
> thing, while we used to say only that there's no imperative mandate and
> that chapters-elected trustees are not chapters representatives, etc.
I'm not sure what you find odd about it, but it is factual.

The key point is that board members must work on behalf of the Foundation,
and must not act as representatives of a particular constituency, and those
constituencies cannot direct board members elected/nominated by them to act
in certain ways.

I agree that it is not entirely relevant to this discussion: the board's
statement on controversial content was issued in May, and all three
community-nominated board members who signed off on that statement were
re-elected subsequent to that.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list