[Foundation-l] The role of the board

Sun Apr 17 06:54:58 UTC 2005

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:09:11PM -0400, Delirium wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> 
> >The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a 
> >legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of 
> >course involves profound respect for the community.
> 
> That's only true for the unelected 3/5 of the board---two of the board 
> members very explicitly represent the community, and indeed the 
> community can replace them at the next election if it dislikes how it's 
> being represented.
> 
> >This only comes up in some counterfactual hypotheticals -- suppose we 
> >have a huge influx of newcomers from our newfound fame, and people 
> >want to turn this into a big joke project?  Suppose the community 
> >votes to abandon neutrality in favor of, hmm, let's say support for 
> >the US war on terror?  Some things, like Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, 
> >and NPOV, are not negotiable, as is my firm insistence that what we 
> >are doing is to be a *high quality* work first, are not negotiable, 
> >and if the community doesn't like it, we have to find different people 
> >to be a part of the community.
> 
> This seems incompatible with en eventual move to an all-elected board; 
> does that mean the board will perpetually have less than 50% of its 
> members be elected?  I was under the impression that that was only a 
> temporary situation, not a permanent one.
> 

Maybe the time has come to consider creating a "constitution" of sorts
that constrains the board against corrupting the purpose of the project,
then.  While it is true that elected boardmembers can make decisions
counter to the intended spirit of the endeavor, it is also true that
constraining them from engaging in that sort of behavior is possible
through the application of a set of rules that are, as Jimbo indicated,
not negotiable.

I'm no devotee of democracy for its own sake.  What makes the United
States government tolerable is not the fact that it has representative
democratic elements; it is the fact that the government is constrained
by the terms of the Consitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in
particular.  Given enough time and corruption in the right places, this
can of course be undermined to a great degree in practice, but at least
the attempt has been made to limit the damage that can be done.  This is
a good thing, in my way of thinking, and I think it may in time become a
necessary thing for Wikipedia and sibling projects as well, if the
spirit of the entire project is to be preserved at all.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]