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.