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

Sun Jan 29 16:22:14 UTC 2006

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>  
> 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.
>   
I am amazed that you suggest that an officer of the Wikimedia Foundation 
would be personally liable for the work done as an officer. I would 
expect that an officer of an organisation speaks for the organisation 
and as a consequence the organisation is liable for the actions of its 
personnel. Normally someone employed by an organisation is liable only 
when gross incompetence can be proven or in cases where the law has been 
violated to an extend where criminal intend can be proven.

I am sure that someone can and will explain to what extend an employee 
is personally liable for his actions as an employee of the Wikimedia 
Foundation.
>  
> 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
When you mean to say that we have to be careful in our actions, I could 
not agree with you more. However, many of the volunteers in our 
community have qualifications that are hard to get when you want to have 
their effort done by professionals. When you imply that only 
professionals do a professional job, you have to look at what we do and 
provide, it is unorthodox how things get done, and it is exactly this 
unorthodoxy that makes the distinction between how things are done in a 
full professional organisation and in our organisation, an organisation 
that is seen and priced for the quality it provides.

Thanks,
   GerardM