Hi, I read from several posts that the process with the nominating committee did not work out at all. In the mean time the whole nominating committee (and therefore any formal procedure where non-board members, read: the community, have any say on who gets onto the board in the appointed seat). I might have missed it (probably have) but is there some kind of evaluation of the functioning of the NomCom and a good reasoning why it was totally abolished? Is it clear /why/ it did not work?
Birgitte seems to suggest it didnt work because procedures were not followed. Earlier (don't recall where exactly) (a) board member(s) seemed to suggest that it did not work because they were too slow and did not do their job. Both arguments seem to me something that can be solved quite easily - by starting to follow procedures or by getting different people on the committee. Perhaps someone who was there on the board at the time could clarify? Thanks a lot, Lodewijk 2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> > On 06/24/2011 07:57 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I also sat on NomCom during this time period. I cannot agree that Matt's > appointment was more problematic than Stu's or Jan-Bart. Frankly all the > appointed board seats are problematic, and I cannot understand how you can > focus on Matt's appointment alone as a significant issue, nor how you reach > the conclusion that disorganization on the part of the board had any > significant role in the problems of appointed board seats. > > > > I am going to be frank and clear about how the issue appears to me: The > bylaws, in regard to appointed board seats, are unredeemably flawed. > > > > I find it offensive that any appointed Board Member should be singled out > and undermined merely because an impossible appointment process failed to > offer them greater legitimacy. All the appointments fell so far short of the > outlined process that I believe concluding one appointment to be less > acceptable than the others is impossible to objectively judge. Yes > Bishakha's seat was settled with more active discussion from NomCom than any > of the others. However the outlined process for appointed seats is not at > all what occurred. I suggest you re-read the by-laws (pay attention to the > time-line as well), consult your notes and dates, and honestly tell me how > the board might have believed that NomCom had any hope fulfilling the > official process at the time of Matt's appointment. > > That's other issue and I am not a legal expert. > > My logic behind suggesting to keep current members was probability that > changing them would bring more instability in already unstable Board at > that time. Board is today more stable than it was at that time and it is > good that this issue has been opened, so we can go further. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
