Risker, 06/11/2012 09:40:
On 6 November 2012 03:07, Florence Devouard <anthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Errr. No. At least historically, this is incorrect.
Michael Davis was the first treasurer of the board (appointed by Jimbo at
the beginning of the WMF). After some time, Michael announced his desire to
quit the board and move on with his own life. Over the following months, we
sort of waited for a board member with financial background to be elected
on the board by the community so that we could replace Michael. Quite
naturally, none of this happened.
This is the primary reason why we added appointed board members. It was
done so that the board could finally fill in the gaps. We looked for
additional board members to be appointed, WITH the wish to have a treasurer.
Appointment of Stu was completely dependent on the assignment.
Florence
I get that Stu's selection as a Board-appointed trustee was based on his
qualifications. However, there is nothing in the bylaw now or at any time
that specified the Treasurer must have certain qualifications, nor is there
anything in the bylaw's description of Board-selected trustees that
specifies that any of them must have specific qualifications.
You're wrong.
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws&oldid=56028#Section_3._Selection.>
«The appointment of Board-appointed Trustees shall be conducted
consistent with the provisions of Subsection (A)» -> «The Board must
comprise members with a diverse set of talents, experience, and
competencies that will best fulfill the mission and needs of the
Foundation».
How the process should work in more detail is discussed elsewhere[1] but
yes, there are criteria in the bylaws according to which the board must
appoint members (otherwise it would be completely discretionary), so the
rationale Florence recalled above was necessary for the appointment to
be consistent with the bylaws, and changes to the bylaws of course
require the rationales to change accordingly. Changes may be bigger or
smaller (Bishakha said they're small enough not to impact the current
composition), but it's factually incorrect to deny them.
Practically speaking, I'd expect the next appointment resolution to
explain its consistency with the new bylaws rather than just confirm
previous resolutions which were in a different context and are therefore
ipso facto no longer relevant.
Nemo
[1]
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Democratizing_the_Wikimedia_Foundation#Selecting_board_members>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
