On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*, life members of the board . Daniel Mayer and Angela Beesley.
Please, no... I left for a reason. Well, about 10 reasons actually. I'm very pleased I won't be doing this in a week's time. :)
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of having any positive influence within the current Board. Later, when that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and Foundation needs.
It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006
I strongly support this platform and as I said at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Endorse_2006 I believe Erik is the best candidate to represent the community in the development of the Wikimedia Foundation over the coming year. Erik has shown a continued commitment, not only to Wikipedia but to the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. Erik's commitment to the sort of openness that will ensure the community will have an influence in ensuring the Foundation meets its goals makes me happy to endorse him as the person to replace me on the Board.
Angela