On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Ting Chen <wing.phil...@gmx.de>: > > There are other reasons too. For example because an > > advisory board member don't have certain authority against the staff, > > and because in a lot of cases you cannot definitively say here ends the > > strategic planning and there starts the othervise function. > > Now we're getting to some real reasons. I don't agree regarding > authority - the board as a collective body has the authority, they can > exercise that authority on behalf of an advisory board member if > necessary. The difficulty in drawing lines between different parts of > the role is valid, though. I expect it can be overcome with some > effort, however. I think the main valid reason is that it's kind of rude to ask someone like Halprin to commit a certain portion of his quite valuable time to the project, absolutely free, and not to even allow him one board vote (out of what, 10 now?). I'd rather see a system for experts where "the community" (with a better definition than just whoever makes X edits) ratifies the nominees made by the nomination committee, or at least one where "the community" has the power to remove members. But I'd rather see the Wikimedia Foundation as a membership organization... So whatever. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
