[Foundation-l] Future Board election procedures and guidelines

Tue Jul 17 08:28:38 UTC 2007

On 7/17/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/17/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/17/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oscar resigned from his position as head of the Dutch chapter when he
> > > joined the Board; Frieda will not stand for the presidency of the
> > > Italian chapter again in November. This is not a "punishment", it is
> > > simply a clear separation of roles that helps to avoid conflicts of
> > > interest in many decision-making processes where chapters are
> > > involved.
> >
> >
> > Indeed, that is quite on point, but not in they way you think. There is
> > no suggestion offered, nor do I think there will be, that people
> involved
> > in chapter governance not run for the board of trustees, untill having
> > been separated from that role for a year...
>
> And there shouldn't be any such suggestion. Candidates running for
> board positions are asked what their previous involvement with
> non-profits was, chapters are in the large majority acting as
> non-profits, I believe it makes no difference whether someone runs for
> the board of the Wikimedia Foundation with an experience in being part
> of Wikimedia chapter governance or SOS Children governance. Also,
> would one prevent the CEO of <insert  name of NGO here> to run for a
> position in the board of the Foundation? I don't think so. Please
> remember that Wikimedia Chapters and Wikimedia Foundation are
> independant organisations. Being involved in the politics of one does
> not necessarily meain being involved in the politic of the other.

Fully agreed.

Back to the subject at hand, as one of those that this change in
> policy would effect, and although I understand Brion's point, I tend
> to agree with Jan-Bart and Erik, and especially Michael Snow's
> suggestion of a six months cooling off (Andrew's word) between an
> employee leaving the Foundation and their running for the board. It
> might seem awkward for those of us who are already "in", as it would
> yet come as something we didn't think about when we signed in to get
> the job, but I do believe that it is a good firewall between board
> governance and everyday executive matters, by providing on both parts
> (that of the organisation and that of the individual), a little time
> to put things in perspective.

Like I think I said in my first posting in this thread, I think a cooling
off
period is not in itself a bad idea; though I  personally think it is best
done out of sympathy and compassion, rather than alarm. A "sabbatical"
is much preferred over the term "firewall" IMNSHO.  And as for
length, 6 months is a pretty fair number.

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]