[Foundation-l] Future Board election procedures and guidelines

[GerardM]

Hoi,
What you describe is really hypothetical. The WMF does not have the funds to
hire all the trouble makers that we know off. We do not have the funds to
hire the people to fill the positions that we have. So the scenario is not
only hypothetical it is also unrealistic and as such it is even irrelevant.
Even our policy of "assume good faith" argues that when your experience with
an individual tells you so, you should not get him in a position to do more
evil.

What we need in our Wikimedia Foundation is a good working relation between
board and employees. Most of the board members are chosen from our
community. There is in my opinion a need for a firewall between the
organisation of the Foundation and it projects in the same way as there is a
firewall between a chapter and the projects. By denying employees to stand
as board member, you prevent that this firewall is undermined. This is true
to a lesser extend for ex-employees and it disappears over time.

>From my perspective, having employees in the Foundation play an important
role in the projects is in my opinion as bad an idea.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 7/14/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/14/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/14/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There are currently seven seats.
> > >
> > > Three are held by appointed members (Jimbo, Michael, Jan-Bart) and
> > > their terms expire on 31 December this year. From that time onwards,
> > > appointed members are appointed for terms of one year.
> > >
> > > Three are held by elected members (Erik, Kat, Frieda) who were just
> > > elected yesterday, their terms last for two years, and will expire on
> > > 30 June 2009.
> > >
> > > The odd one out is Ant, who was an elected member whose term was due
> > > to end 30 June this year, but she was converted to an appointed member
> > > at the last board expansion with a term expiring on 30 June 2008. At
> > > that time, Ant's appointed seat will be replaced by an elected seat.
> > >
> > > I anticipate (based on the most recent Board expansion resolution)
> > > that the Board will expand to nine members at that time, adding
> > > another two community elected seats, with terms commencing 1 July
> > > 2008. This will result in two tranches of three elected members
> > > serving two year terms, beginning on 1 July, offset from each other by
> > > one year, and one tranche of appointed members with one year terms
> > > beginning on 1 January each year.
> > >
>
>
> Fixing inadvertent top posting...
>
> >Hoi,
> >I have supported and do support that employees and ex-employees should
> not
> >be eligible to stand for an elected function of the Wikimedia Foundation.
> >Ex-employees would become eligible again after a year.
>
> >This original point was made in an e-mail on the Foundation list by
> >Jan-Bart.
>
> >Thanks,
> >    GerardM
>
> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029433.html
>
> A year long cooling period, perhaps even one year and a half for good
> measure, sounds at first hearing like a capital idea.
>
> However, this does open theoretical avenues for abuse... strictly
> theoretical mind you...
>
> To take a perfectly hypothetical case. Let us say the foundation
> board members are worried that notorious troublemaker Tweedledee
> is going to run for board of trustees membership. And despite his
> tendency to rouffle feathers, or perhaps because of it, they fear
> Tweedledee might easily do well in the elections, maybe even get
> in.
>
> So the trustees have a bright idea! They hire Tweedledee,  as an
> employee in charge of paperclips and hand him a red stapler
> giving him a desk at the basement of the foundation office.
>
> Now, there is a rule that there is an X month quarantine
> during which former employees may not run for elected
> office.
>
> So,  X minus one months before the election, they fire Tweedledee,
> ensuring that Tweedledee may only run after X minus one months
> plus the term between elections.
>
> I grant this is purely hypothetical. But to be quite serious, so is it
> quite hypothetical to presume that a former employee running
> for a board of trustees position would be deleterious to the
> boards functioning. In fact one might equally argue that having
> been in contact with the board intimately, they might even
> have a shorter period of acclimatisation and orientation for
> their position as trustee. (I am sure Oscar might be able to tell us if
> he needed much time to adjust to the ways the board worked
> coming from the outside, and why not the other board members
> current and past too)
>
>
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>