[Foundation-l] Power of the Board and wikimedians (was Re: Bounties and expenses)

Thu Jun 24 03:41:17 UTC 2004

I think there are two separate issues on this debate.

1. Are the Trustees expected to serve as the "top" for us?
2. Is the meeting of the Trustees that important compared to others?

For the first question, I think the majority opinion is that the Trustees 
are supposed to listen to us, serve as, and act upon our (multilingual 
wikimedia communty's) concensus. And from what Angela and Anthere expressed 
when running for the election, we can believe that they want to do that.

Mark should not worry that much, and I think many people are not that 
different from Mark's view on this issue.

But sometimes, the Trustees have to make decisions on behalf of wikimedians 
without clear concensus - just like wikimedia administrators are pressured 
to do sometime. There may be no clear concensus. The matter is kind of 
urgent that there is no time to consult with wikimedia community. There may 
be some technical dimensions regarding how to interpret the concensus into 
concrete actions and technical choices.

Because of these situations, we elect someone we can trust. Someone who 
knows wikimedia better, someone who is not likely to abuse the discretionary 
power. Like the admins for wikimedia projects, they do handle important 
matters. But they do so according to community concensus.

So the answer to the first question is no.

Of course, there is a hierarchical structure to an extent. But this is 
supposedly a positive move from the Jimbo's dictatorship to more democratic 
governance.

And as in the case of administrators' actions, transparency is important so 
that we can monitor and give feedback to the Trustees whenever it is 
beneficial.

Regarding the second question, it seems that this is more of a matter of 
belief so far.

- Some believe that face-to-face meeting is very important. It is even a 
matter of principle for some - Trustees expenses should be reimbursed, that 
is the way it is supposed to be.
- Others believe that compared to the cost, it has merit.
- Others may believe that compared to the cost, it does not have enough 
merit.
- Yet others believe there are always better ways to spend money than this.

I am surprised to see that so many on this list seem to be on the strong 
supportive side.

In the future, there might be a meeting in the U.S. Is it okay to pay, say, 
1500 dollars to reimburse the travel expenses of the two Trustees from 
Europe? I don't know. I would like to know the agendas for the meeting and 
think how important it is, rather than to say "Trustees should always be 
paid for that."

But if we decide not to pay, it means that some quality people might not run 
for the next election because they do not have enough money to attend the 
meeting. This is not a happy consequence for us, either.

Best,

Tomos

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/