On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
>> (1) The most compelling arguments in favour of having appointees as
>> voting board members (as opposed to having them as advisory board members),
> I'm not sure what you're asking. I think that both external experts and
> the community-elected and chapter-appointed Board members should be voting
> members, if they are to be on the board. If you're asking whether it is
> useful to have external appointees on the Board at all, I think the answer
> is quite obvious - we need the level of engagement and expertise, that will
> not be available if we ask them to be on the advisory board, and I don't
> think it is likely it would be if they were to no non-decisive board
> members. Proportions between solely board-appointed and community-nominated
> people is a different story.
Thanks Dariusz. It's more or less what I was thinking too; a seat on an
advisory board is perhaps not attractive enough to really care.
> I am glad to hear you are working on a proposal to increase the number of
>> community/chapter seats on the board (though I personally tend to think
>> that at 2 vs. 3, the chapters are already slightly over-represented,
>> compared to the general community).
> Sadly, humans count in full numbers only, so it could be either 1 or 2 in
> the current system, and 1 is not that many neither :)
Well, you might add a community-selected board member. That would make 2
seats for the chapters, and 4 for the community in general. That seems a
Moreover, if you increase the community-selected board members to 4, this
would ensure that the majority of members (6 out of 11) can trace their
presence on the board to the results of a democratic process.
Hey, you could just re-add James, leaving María in place. :) I think the
community might welcome that, as a signal of reconciliation.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com