It's very good to know that those changes are being considered at all. I do
tend to agree with Andreas about two chapter seats being a slight
overrepresentation, but I think there should be one.

If I were to make my ideal board (and I realize you may have something else
in mind, but just to throw the idea out :) ):

-Five community-elected seats. Truly community-elected, not
"community-suggested"; the Board cannot refuse to seat them or throw them
off, but can call a referendum to the community in the event a for-cause
removal is thought to be necessary. No not-for-cause involuntary removals,
though of course a Board member may voluntarily resign at any time and for
any or no reason.

-One chapter/org seat, appointed by the chapters as done today.

-Four appointed/"specialty" seats, appointed for specialty expertise or
outside perspective as would befit the current strategy.

And yes, there is a madness to my method, or something like that. Five
community seats (I don't consider the chapter seat a community seat) would
mean that while those five individuals could not act unilaterally, they
could, if unanimously opposed, block any actions by the unelected Board
members. (I presume tie votes are considered to fail, as is common
practice.) Similarly, the non-community members could, if unanimous, block
something brought forth by only the community board members. All business
that goes through would, by necessity, involve at least one person
supporting it from both "sides".

So, five community elected seats, five filled by other means. No Founder
seat. If Jimmy wants to serve, he's of course welcome to run for a
community-elected seat, or seek appointment to one of the appointed seats.

Like I said, not my call, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on a
scheme like that.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to