[Foundation-l] Outsiders on the Board? (was Re: Poll for Wikistandards)

Sun Jan 29 14:44:40 UTC 2006

In a message dated 1/29/2006 9:05:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au writes:

If  Wikimedia needs qualified outside help, it's in operations, not 
oversight.  Only an elected board, accountable to the Wikimedia 
community, can ensure  that the principles that the community holds dear 
are upheld.

Some  committees might benefit from the guidance of qualified outsiders, 
but the  committees should still be dominated by volunteers, either 
selected by a  transparent and fair process with Board oversight or, as 
Erik suggests,  with open membership.

Actually, as Wikipedia grows it requires help in oversight no less than it  
does in operations. A large organization entails legal and  financial 
responsibilities. If we are sued, for whatever reason, we cannot  simply throw another 
server at the person suing us. 

As I understand it, serving on the Board or in some other official  capacity, 
such as officer, includes legal responsibility, including liability.  It is 
not just the ability to make decisions that comes with a position,  but the 
willingness to face the consequences. The issue is not who takes  credit when 
things go right, but rather, who takes the blame when something goes  wrong.

This is not an indictment of volunteers. I believe that they are the  
lifeblood of this organization. At our size, however, we are faced with enormous  
responsibilities. All of these efforts at reorganization are attempts to  channel 
volunteer efforts effectively, so that they can continue doing what  they do 
best--fulfilling the Foundation's mission statement by creating and  
distributing high quality free content resources--while limiting the  repercussions 
that the Foundation, and by extension, the volunteers, face when  things do not 
go right. This is something that requires professional legal and  financial 
knowhow.

Danny