Sorry, this continues to dig a bizarre hole. It would be rude or even unethical to nominate someone for a demanding trustee position in a NFP or charity without first personally approaching them in a friendly way and asking them if they might be interested and would like to be nominated. I do not know of any charity where prospective trustees routinely get nominated in secret without the candidate knowing who put their name forward, though some people respond to public recruiting adverts for trustee seats. The WMF is not supposed to be run as if it were a secretive members only club for plutocrats.
There has been no reason given here so far that can explain this default arbitrary secrecy. It seems very hard not to consider the possibility that Arnnon's nomination was done in a way that the community would find unpalatable and would reflect badly on those involved. Just make the facts of Arnnon's appointment to the board a matter of public record, rather than dancing around it. Fae On 11 January 2016 at 01:44, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> wrote: >> .. >> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely* >> responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a >> transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken. > > > for clarification: I've meant that the selected new Board members themselves > do not necessarily know who nominated them. Apologies for the confusion. > > dj -- [email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
