daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/2006 9:05:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, t.starling@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.
This is not an indictment of volunteers. I believe that they are the lifeblood of this organization. At our size, however, we are faced with enormous responsibilities. All of these efforts at reorganization are attempts to channel volunteer efforts effectively, so that they can continue doing what they do best--fulfilling the Foundation's mission statement by creating and distributing high quality free content resources--while limiting the repercussions that the Foundation, and by extension, the volunteers, face when things do not go right. This is something that requires professional legal and financial knowhow.
Danny
When you mean to say that we have to be careful in our actions, I could not agree with you more. However, many of the volunteers in our community have qualifications that are hard to get when you want to have their effort done by professionals. When you imply that only professionals do a professional job, you have to look at what we do and provide, it is unorthodox how things get done, and it is exactly this unorthodoxy that makes the distinction between how things are done in a full professional organisation and in our organisation, an organisation that is seen and priced for the quality it provides.
Thanks, GerardM