[Foundation-l] board candidacies

Thu Aug 17 06:37:07 UTC 2006

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>1.  The Wikimedia Foundation is not independent.  It has a stacked Board 
>>>designed by Jimbo to allow him to maintain personal control.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>This is an insult to the board.
>>
>>--Jimbo
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Adding two more seats will forever destroy this inaccurate and 
>misleading perception. 
>
Check the email archives for a few months prior to the date of the final 
foundation paperwork.

You will find emails messages self allegedly from  Jimbo's  email 
accounts stating the intent  to  stack the Board and discussing 
specifics of how he proceeded to do so.

The perception is neither inaccurate nor misleading.

Two more elected rather than Jimbo appointed seats will permanently 
alter reality according to the bylaws.  Whether perceptions, misceptions 
or urban legends change depends of course upon individual and corporate 
memories and the long term stability and reliability of our community's 
electronic records.

>I have heard it from several
>other folks who are external observers to the Wikipedia phenomena and 
>its "urban legend" type of talk -- not based in fact --
>and not based upon any emperical observations. I believe the root of the 
>misperception is how the by laws are worded.
>If it were me, I would appoint these two additional positions from the 
>Foundations major financial contributors or foundations
>supporting Wikipedia's fine work to balance out the various 
>representation and views.
>
>Jeff
>
>  
>
My empirical observations were personal and not based upon glib 
dismissal of alleged hearsay from apparently distrusted sources.

Perhaps you should check privately with Anthere.  As I recall she was 
participating frequently on the applicable list and stood for election 
in the formation of the first Board.   Did Jimbo really stack the Board 
or merely state publicly he was going to and proceed to write it 
unilaterally (perhaps with some assistance from nonexistent cabals or 
personal advisors) into the original foundation charter?

A fact is an insult to nobody unless they perceive it so.   If the 
allegedly stacked Board Members or appointed trustees do not feel the 
Board was stacked; perhaps they should feel insulted that Jimbo 
announced on the mailing publicly that he felt it was comfortably 
designed to be stacked.

If you wish the specific URLs and you wish me to do your research for 
you then drop me a data request at my Wikiversity talk page.   My time 
kibitzing here is almost over.   We have active URLs with fine print 
defining another prototyping period.   Fun stuff.   Let's all do some 
work and then cancel again for lack of discouraged participation.

Sincerely,
Michael R. Irwin