[Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

Wed Mar 19 05:59:44 UTC 2008

Erik,

You said that:

>  We need to get over the idea that the Board somehow has to be deeply
>  connected to
>  - the project communities

I'm sorry, but there's more to being on the board or part
of the staff than just being good in a particular field (this is not
to put down the benefits of a professional-driven board). At the
same time, the Board _must_ remain intimate with the projects
and keep abreast of community sentiment. Without this, they
inevitably will make decisions that at some point are against
the wishes of the community they supposedly represent.

-Chad

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 3/18/08, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann at gmx.net> wrote:
>  >  In my eyes, binding the majority of the board to the community of
>  >  editors would be a burden, not an asset, as editors to Wikipedia will
>  >  very soon don't know much about the activities of WMF, and being based
>  >  in the community of the wikis will not be helpful for the tasks of a
>  >  board member.
>
>  That's absolutely correct. There are specific organizational problems
>  that we need to solve:
>  - ensuring that the Wikimedia Foundation is in compliance with all
>  regulations governing 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations;
>  - ensuring that the budget and the financial reports of the Foundation
>  are sound and developed in accordance with best practices;
>  - hiring, evaluating and supporting the Executive Director;
>  - supporting the Foundation's fundraising efforts;
>  - approving the long-term operational plans developed by the Foundation staff,
>  etc.
>
>  Our election process is designed to identify people of integrity and
>  commitment and passion; these are the key attributes that have allowed
>  us to remain radical, open & independent. It is not designed, however,
>  to measure specific qualifications related to some of the roles above.
>  For example, it is not designed to find someone with accounting or
>  management experience. In fact, submitting a CV or undergoing a
>  background and reference check is not a requirement for becoming a
>  Board member.
>
>  But these qualifications are absolutely necessary for protecting the
>  organization. Just an example: It's very hard to do good hiring for a
>  position whose background is completely different from your own.
>  That's why Brion is the hiring manager for developers and not Sue - so
>  we can find great techies to expand our team. Similarly, to hire a
>  competent Executive Director, it helps to have significant experience
>  in the management of non-profit organizations. And so forth.
>
>  We need to get over the idea that the Board somehow has to be deeply
>  connected to
>  - the project communities
>  - the day-to-day questions facing the Foundation.
>
>  Dealing with challenges in both areas is the responsibility of staff &
>  volunteers. Staff are organized through the Foundation itself;
>  volunteers lack organizational representation. That's what the
>  Volunteer Council seeks to address: giving volunteers a forum, a
>  voice, a set of responsibilities.
>
>  Some decisions which were in the past taken by the Board (final
>  approval of new wiki projects, policies on licensing, some or all
>  agreements related to the chapters) could be delegated to the V.C.,
>  but importantly, it would also address questions which are only very
>  vaguely answerable right now: What to do when a conflict escalates
>  beyond a single wiki, how to investigate allegations of serious abuse
>  of administrative privileges, when to activate a software feature,
>  etc.
>
>  The V.C. would work with the staff on issues affecting the
>  communities, e.g. business deals affecting the projects, grant
>  proposals, etc. - the nature of that relationship would still have to
>  be developed, and a lot of it would probably be consensus-driven, just
>  like collaboration in the projects. Some decisions could be firmly in
>  the V.C.'s hand, e.g. final approval of organizational program goals,
>  approval of any change significantly affecting a project, etc.
>
>  In such a model, a Board of people with decades of non-profit
>  experience provides the necessary "last protection" for the
>  Foundation: protection against mismanagement, support of
>  sustainability efforts, protection against violation of core values,
>  etc. This does not mean that these people have to have 10,000 edits in
>  the projects. They could come from education, from projects assisting
>  developing nations, from the technology sector. But they would have
>  one thing in common: experience safeguarding _organizations_, rather
>  than wikis.
>
>  From everything we know, Wikimedia is a very young, proud, geeky
>  community. And it's the common fallacy of young people to
>  underestimate the value of experience. Work experience for
>  organizations with hundreds of staff in positions of management,
>  accounting, legal responsibilities means having hundreds of personal
>  case studies to draw from, hundreds of parameters to consider when
>  making a decision. Expertise _matters_.
>
>  Integrity can come from within or from without. "Not a wiki editor"
>  does not mean "person who will sell out the project to evil venture
>  capitalists at the next opportunity". Wikimedia is a values-driven
>  community; it is not the only one. People with strong convictions and
>  beliefs and passions _and_ experience who would support our cause
>  wholeheartedly can be found -- and they can be asked to commit to core
>  principles and values we hammer out. To a large extent we've already
>  done so.
>
>  The mixing of the senior managers, accountants, lawyers and the young
>  wiki volunteer enthusiasts into a single body is a recipe for conflict
>  and burn-out: One group has near limitless energy, the other has to be
>  conservative with its time; one group tries to make measured decisions
>  with long term implications, the other is highly involved in actions
>  taking effect immediately; one group tries to be vocal and visible as
>  members of a community, the other tries to be cautious and deliberate.
>
>  Different organizational functions call for different qualifications.
>  We've tried to fit everything into one Board. That was the simplest
>  model to start with when the organization was young. As we grow, we
>  need to achieve a mature balance that is sustainable. As Henning said:
>  If we want to become a charity of free knowledge, we need to start
>  thinking like a charity -- and that means drawing from all areas of
>  expertise, not just the obvious core volunteer community experience.
>  --
>  Erik Möller
>  Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
>  Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>