[Foundation-l] Notice of the results of the WMF Board of Trustees election

[Ray Saintonge]

Alison Wheeler wrote:

>On Sat, July 14, 2007 19:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>  
>
>>I'll go further than that. The chapters being active in the election
>>of board of trustees would in no way or shape of form create
>>legal liability for edits on the wikies run by the Foundation, any
>>more than a citizens action group promoting interest in some
>>national election would by this action assume legal liability for
>>passing the laws written by the governing body to which the
>>representatives were elected. I am sure you are the only one
>>reading this to whom this needs to be explained.
>>    
>>
>Here I must again disagree. Speaking for a moment as the Chair of the UK
>Chapter, I would be *very* wary of our having a voice/vote in the
>selection of the Board of the Foundation because, imho, it *would* create
>a legal connection between us. Whilst there are certainly issues around
>the responsibility for 'edits' on the projects, there is a greater
>requirement that there is a clear separation of (legal) responsibilities
>as might relate to the ownership and content of the projects. I, for one,
>would not countenance a formal relationship of this kind.
>
I agree that caution is warranted.  I find a very high level of legal 
naïveté among some of our colleagues, and that can be frightening.  In a 
few areas, like copyright or defamation, the Community is relatively 
conservative, but blissful ignorance prevails in far too many other 
areas.  The leadership in national chapters need to be aware of many 
pitfalls.

>Ec wrote:
>  
>
>>I would have concerns about the intelligence of a person who accepts a
>>job counting paperclips.  I would quesion his suitability for a
>>responsible Board position, and let my vote be guided accordingly. :-)
>>    
>>
>
>My bigger concern would be for the Board; these are online projects so
>what are the paperclips for! ;-P
>
>Seriously though, I have absolutely no problem with former employees
>seeking to become elected representatives on the Board. Just as Civil
>servants in the UK are permitted to stand as councillors and MPs so long
>as they resign their {local|state} government job first, so we should
>welcome people who have been 'at the sharp end' in the Foundation and
>still want to see it improve by working _voluntarily_ (rather than as a
>_paid_ employee) to that end.
>
In some places they take an unpaid leave-of-absence when they stand, but 
only need to resign if they are successful.  This especially makes more 
sense when a person is in a low level job.

>I would be *very* concerned though about the reverse; for someone to leave
>the Board and then be appointed within weeks or months to a paid position
>by the remaining board would, imho, be reprehensible and an unacceptable
>way to proceed.
>
We agree on this.

Ec