In a message dated 12/29/2007 12:42:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, erik@wikimedia.org writes:
- Do the current criteria for Board membership -- making a lot of edits on the projects, being a valued community member, being elected by your peers -- help to constitute a Board that can serve this function?
- If they do not, how does expanding the Board with more community members and, simultaneously, creating a community-run Wikicouncil help us when it comes to learning lessons from the last year regarding corporate governance?
Just for purposes of clarification, can you please explain how this coincides with your election statements:
"This is why I have always insisted that the majority of the Board of Trustees should be made of (preferably elected) members of the community. It was partially my insistence that led to this principle being written into the _Foundation Bylaws_ (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws) ."
and
"I would like to see our Board expanded to nine members. Jimmy has indicated that he would not mind his status to be that of an elected member at some point, which would mean that we could have 4 appointed members in compliance with the present bylaws. This allows us to bring seasoned professionals from outside our project communities on board, to assist in matters such as fundraising, financial oversight, governance policy, and so forth. That does not mean that these same skills should not also be present in elected Board members. *But the community will, probably, typically focus less on these skills and more on the content of their platforms, their conduct and standing in the community, their cultural and intellectual background, the principles they espouse, and so forth.* These factors, on the other hand, will be less important for appointed Board members from outside the community. And this is exactly what I see reflected in the existing Wikimedia Board of Trustees."
In other words, you won the election, fair and square, campaigning on a platform advocating a community-majority board. This is in contrast with me, for instance, who campaigned on a platform advocating a professional board. Are you saying that since the election, less that six months ago, you have rejected your platform and adopted my position?
On the one hand, I am glad that you have come around to my way of thinking. On the other hand, I am a bit surprised by this apparent inconsistency in your position and, even more so, by what could be conceived as a failure to represent the interests of your constituents as promised in your platform.
Peace, love, and professionalism,
Danny
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)