Sue Gardner writes:
> Would inviting Matt to join create perception problems? > Probably not among external stakeholders because donors serving on > boards is fairly normal in non-profit land, but yes among community > members, because the community is (appropriately) a fierce defender of > the independence of the projects. Should the board do what it thinks > is best for the organization and the movement, even if its > decisions/actions are unpopular? The board decided yes. Should the > board try to separate the grant announcement from the Matt > announcement to mitigate community anger? No, because that would be > disingenuous. And, it might actually increase anger rather than > mitigating it. > In my view, Sue has expressed the reasoning of the Board in a nutshell here. Remember that the Board recognized the risks of appointing Matt, and nevertheless appointed him anyway. The community plays a large role in selecting Board members, and it is appropriate to keep this in mind when voting on Board seats. Nevertheless, I think the Board made a hugely intelligent and attentive decision in appointing Matt, and I think it is best if the community acknowledges and honors that decision, which comes in part from Board members the community supports. --Mike Godwin _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
