Thread:Concerns over Nominated Members (3)

Hi Leigh,

You have been a leading pioneer in WikiEducator since its early days. There was a long open process in the development of the Governance policy, with numerous invitations to the community for comment. For whatever reason you chose not take the time to comment on the policy formulation process :-(.

However, this is the policy that has afforded you an elected seat on WikiEducator's Council. Now it is our collective responsibility to exercise our fiduciary responsibilities to the Community in accordance with the policies that were developed openly and transparently.

The notion of nominated members was discussed during the development of the policy. Speaking candidly -- I think this is a very smart solution on the part of WikiEducator:


 * The wiki model is based on the notion that more eyes actually contribute to the quality of a resource -- why wouldn't more eyes on council contribute to the quality of governance -- especially if they can provide an "outsiders" perspective -- Is denying the validity of informed opinion beyond our own naval gazing a contradiction in terms? Are we scared of open governance?
 * I've served on numerous advisory boards. In my experience they don't work. Very often Advisory boards are established as a political show to say we have these important people advising us. The reality is boards don't listen to advice and the advisers don't pay too much attention to the advice they're giving because they're not accountable. In the case of WikiEducator -- we're pretty smart because we can hold nominated members accountable for their decisions as voting members of council.
 * Elected members have a majority on our Council -- if we end up with poor nominated members, its our own fault for not taking the right decisions.

I'm not sure that I agree with your arguments -- you can hardly compare a municipal council with the dynamic of an open wiki :-).

Cheers