Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Erik as backup trustee

I think the scepticism, certainly from my point of view, is not in the idea
of having a substitute member but in the idea of using the results of one
vote to decide on a new issue.  I think it is possible that if we had been
voting for two members plus a substitute the voting pattern may have been
different.  I don't know that it is so of course, and perhaps the closeness
of the final result indicates that it wouldn't have been - but my belief in
the principle is strong.  I do know that my own vote was influenced in part
by the number of people we were voting for.

A straightforward ratification vote would be too limited in my view (from my
understanding of how this might work).  A "yes/no" vote would not allow for
other possibilities, such as a holding a new vote specifically for this
position with more than one candidate.  Perhaps a wider vote on the issues
might be helpful (although I'm aware of the problem of too many votes).

-- sannse

(copied privately to Erik)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Moeller" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Erik as backup trustee


> Since several people have expressed skepticism about doing this I withdraw
> my support for this approach (substitute trustee). It would have
> questionable legitimacy, and I don't want that.
>
> I will take a wiki vacation for about two weeks and then I will decide how
> and whether I will continue to participate in Wikimedia. I may make edits
> here and there but I won't be watching the mailing lists so if there's
> anything important please contact me at my other email address,
> [email protected]
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l