I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.
Am I missing something here? Why can't we have a board made up of half experts on business, etc. and half experts of Wikimedia projects? (Hopefully with substantial overlap.) That said, I'd prefer a majority to be from the community. As long as they are willing to take advice from the pros, we should get (almost) all the benefits of a professional board with the decision making still in the hands of people that share our values.