Gerard Meijssen wrote:
daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/2006 9:05:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
t.starling(a)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.
There has been a confusion made between what is an officer from a legal
perspective, in an organisation such as Wikimedia Foundation, and the
titles (eg, press officer) we gave to a few people in the past year.
In the primary definition, "officers" are indeed liable. They receive
delegations of power from the board, and in case of mistakes in their
duties or lack of respect of the delegations which were given to them,
they are liable.
In the secondary definition (ie, the one we have been using for the past
year), "officers" are essentially titles of recognition/identification.
They allow the board to have a primary contact for a collection of
issues, they allow the community to know who to contact and they allow
the outside (press etc...) to feel that they are talking to someone
trusted by the board. But, these "titles" do not imply liability per se.
Some of these titles actually contained the word officer (such as Chief
Technical Officer or Press Officer), while others did not (such as Grant
Coordinator).
We are in the process of clarifying this.
Finally, the whole issue is independant of whether the person is an
employee or not I think. Someone may be an employee, with little
delegation of power, so very limited responsability in front of the law.
And someone may be a volunteer officer, with liability.
It appears that the main two areas where liability is necessary right
now, are the financial and the legal areas. However, one of the board
member has good financial experience, while no board member do have a
legal background.
an t