Milos Rancic wrote:
If anyone's conclusion is that my information is wrong, it may be said so (something like "I checked it with <some better introduced person in fr.wp> and there it is not relevant issue anymore.").
Not that it's wrong, but that it's too vague and unspecified. The burden must be on you to prove that there is a real problem at hand. Or else, any whisper or rumour would force the board to spend significant time on investigations, that most often would turn out to be pointless.
Somehow this relates to your earlier posting where you detailed some actual problems where the board had failed and a council would be needed. I liked that posting a lot, because it suddenly brought the discussion of a council from the abstract and fuzzy to the clear and concrete. But that also made your ideas vulnerable to scrutiny. For example, you mentioned that the board had been too slow in closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. Well, perhaps there was (is) no real problem in delaying? Some matters are urgent, others are not. Somebody at the top must do the prioritizations, and somebody at the bottom will inevitably disagree and be unhappy. You are apparently unhappy with the board and ultimately with Anthere. But is a council really a solution? What if you, instead, was the chair of WMF? That would mean you could prioritize those issues that are really important (according to you). But what if other volunteers were constantly bothering you with irrelevant and unsubstantiated requests?
Now suppose the board continues as today, and the council is added, with you a member of the council. Some decisions are taken by the board, others by the council. Requests are acted upon in a timely manner. But will everybody at the bottom be happy now? In order to get things done, the council needs to take action after a majority vote, which leaves a minority unhappy. Even if the members of the council reach consensus and they are properly elected by and do represent their communities, will everybdoy in the community actually agree with their actions? I think not.
There are a lot of legal and organizational technicalities in setting up a council, such as how do you determine who is included in "the volunteer community" and how do you properly "represent" them. But what is the benefit? Even if you succeed in setting up the council, lots of individual volunteers will be unhappy with every single action that this council takes. The only people who get happier are those who are elected to this council. Is *that* the problem you are trying to solve?