[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is an important difference between a person who walks away in a huff
as an employee and then decides to stand for board election and a person
that changes one role for another. The difference is that in the one
situation I do not expect positive cooperation and in the other I do not see
such such a problem. From my perspective Danny was not forthcoming in
explaining why he left his job. I have asked him repeatedly for this from
the moment when he announced that he would run for a seat on the board of
trustees.

I opposed Danny's candidacy from the moment he announced his wish to be a
candidate. This was before the moment people could make themselves available
as such. The notion that people would object to accepting someone on the
board that was voted in is an option that is open to the board. It will
upset some people but this is to be weighed against the harm that is
expected of an unwelcome elected board member.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 11, 2008 2:17 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 2008 11:13 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> And (also by the text of the minutes that is published - seems there
> are some
> >> edits there that are discussing later developements rather than what
> transpired
> >> at the meeting itself; which is probably illustrative in a positive
> >> fashion, even
> >> though it confuses the text of the minutes as a document of a specific
> event)
> >> specifically Erik was tasked with drafting the resolution; which after
> inquiring
> >> with Mike, (someone, not clear who) decided that it was a bylaws
> matter, not
> >> a resolution matter.
> >>
> > Well, it would make no sense as a resolution matter to ban former
> > employees from becoming board members (for a certain period of time
> > following their employment).  The board has to have a majority vote to
> > install new board members anyway, so that same majority could just
> > repeal the resolution.
>
> Though the community made it crystal clear that it would be really
> shocking that we could refuse a member elected by the community.
>
> Ant
>
>  To have any effectiveness at all this would
> > have to be in the bylaws.
> >
> > That said, the opposite move, banning former board members from
> > becoming employees (for a certain period of time following their board
> > membership), would at least have some effect as a resolution, as it
> > would at least bar such things from happening without the explicit
> > approval of the board.
> >
> >> If there has been a subsequent decision to not implement the voted on
> >> decision even as a bylaws change, that is regrettably in the utmost. A
> real
> >> step backwards in clarifying things between the roles of staff and
> board.
> >>
> > Well, I think the recent events have shown that such a bylaws change
> > would hinder the ability of the Foundation to structure itself most
> > efficiently, so I'd say such a change of view would be fortunate,
> > rather than regrettable.  OTOH, I haven't heard any of the board
> > members, or even Erik himself, say that their view on this rule has
> > changed.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>