[Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation

[Michael R. Irwin]

Somebody wrote:

>I personally don't like the veto system. It is uncomfortable both for
>the board *and* the people involved. Pool to choose from is much
>better.
>  
>
Personally I think this is a very incorrect approach.

It can tend to mask crony networks.  

Having to veto the choices, nominations, or elected candidates will 
inevitably show a trend if cronyism or factionalism gets established.   
This process should be about getting effective 
managers/governers/leaders that the "community" accepts as effective and 
in whom the legal trustees can be equally confident.  The ideal incoming 
leader is percieved as effective in both key roles, operations within 
the foundation and content creation or other valuable community tasks.

Might be feasible in other organizations but considering that we start 
from a crony network currently in charge how will allowing the crony 
network to wait until an appropriate crony or someone they like who 
might someday become a crony to become available in the "pool" restore 
any confidence of fair representation in the rest of the community at large?

Might as well save time and energy and have the Board or Jimbo appoint 
their buddies in the first place.

Regarding discomfort.   It is no more comfortable for people nominated 
to hang around waiting indefinately for a call that will never come than 
it is to be told firmly no,  you are not accepted for the position.

This is why most well run companies or organizations will eventually 
send a letter of some kind telling aspiring candidates that there is no 
place currently open or another interviewee was selected for the 
position.   Thank you for your interest and time.

regards,
lazyquasar