Welcome back Maria. Recent events have shed a much-needed bright light on
the board, and it would have been good to hold a community election in that
light. We do have a limited volunteer capacity to manage elections, though,
and I can understand the desire not to impose too much on volunteer
goodwill. A shame, though. We all might have learned something from the
process.

On Saturday, 30 January 2016, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, why not make the best of both worlds?
>
> If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think that,
> you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a community
> election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that
> they are. James Heilman was the community trustee, and we still have been
> given absolutely no specifics about his removal, just vague handwaves at
> "lack of trust". Why, specifically, did he lose your trust? What,
> specifically, did he supposedly do wrong?
>
> But if the seat absolutely must be filled, make this an interim appointment
> until a new election is complete, and hold such an election as soon as
> possible. A new election is necessary, and not having one is unacceptable.
> A lot has changed since the last one, and the individual you appointed did
> not pass the previous election.
>
> Or in other words: This is still not acceptable.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Adam Wight <adam.m.wi...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski <
> > tom...@twkozlowski.com <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it
> fair
> > > to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community
> > legitimacy
> > > whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > I have to disagree with this statement.  Please see my analysis of the
> > election, where I show that Sefidari would have been the top-ranked
> > candidate if we had counted votes equally.[1]  The "oppose" votes you
> refer
> > to are not serving the purpose you imagine they are, of weeding out
> > controversial candidates.
> >
> > Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to say.
> > >
> >
> > That's another story... It would be nice to read the minutes of this
> Board
> > discussion, to see what alternatives were raised and how they were
> > evaluated.  It would be even nicer if the broader community had been
> > directly involved in deciding how to backfill their hatcheted
> > representative's seat.
> >
> > -Adam
> > [[mw:User:Adamw]]
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to