At 23:20 + 10/2/09, David Gerard wrote:
>2009/2/10 AndrewRT :
>
>> Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep
>> the current 5 or expand to 9?
>
>
>Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
>
>
>- d.
Indeed.
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"//
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton :
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.300-explaining-the-curse-of-work.html?full=true
It's nice to note, that article links to Wikipedia! (The last sentence
links to our article on the English Civil War.) Even New Scientist
endorses us.
___
2009/2/11 Casey Brown :
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Gray
> wrote:
>> 2009/2/10 David Gerard :
>>> 2009/2/10 AndrewRT :
>>>
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep
the current 5 or expand to 9?
>>>
>>> Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson w
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/2/10 David Gerard :
>> 2009/2/10 AndrewRT :
>>
>>> Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep
>>> the current 5 or expand to 9?
>>
>> Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
>
> ...wh
2009/2/10 David Gerard :
> 2009/2/10 AndrewRT :
>
>> Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep
>> the current 5 or expand to 9?
>
> Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
...which was, for those interested, rediscussed in 'New Scientist' a
2009/2/10 AndrewRT :
> Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep
> the current 5 or expand to 9?
Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
- d.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikime
On Feb 10, 8:47 pm, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> It's probably worth pointing out that at the moment less than 7 people
> have expressed an interest in standing for the 7 seats on the board,
I don't think we should assume that this will remain the case. Out of
the five current Board members one has i
On Feb 10, 10:38 pm, Gordon Joly wrote:
>
> Why are there seven seats on the board? I can see why there might be
> seven roles, but why seven people?
>
> Gordo
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep
the current 5 or expand to 9?
Andrew
___
2009/2/10 Gordon Joly :
> Why are there seven seats on the board? I can see why there might be
> seven roles, but why seven people?
Because we had a discussion (on meta, I think) and that's what we
decided. We thought there was too much work for 5 people and 9 people
seemed unwieldy and unnecessar
At 20:47 + 10/2/09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>2009/2/10 Andrew Turvey :
>> We would like to ask people their suggestions as to the best way forward.
>> Should we restrict it to current Board members, or is it reasonable to say
>> that anyone who puts themself forward as a candidate would be acce
2009/2/10 Andrew Turvey :
> We would like to ask people their suggestions as to the best way forward.
> Should we restrict it to current Board members, or is it reasonable to say
> that anyone who puts themself forward as a candidate would be acceptable to
> go?
It's probably worth pointing out th
11 matches
Mail list logo
