the movement is always going to be broader and more diverse both in backgrounds and interests than any possible board; the foundationis ls going to have more diverse concerns than the roles of almost any of us in the movement.
I do not se the fundamental goal of the movement is to create an encyclopedia . Nor is it even to create free intellectual resources. Rather, the movement is to create a model of free human interaction and work, and the initial way of exemplifying this is in the various versions of the encyclopedia . (It's also to create the free Wikimedia software, but the cooperative creation of free software existed long before our movement-- the encyclopedia was innovative, at least in execution and possibly even in concept--Wikimedia was not.
If we really believe in a model of free cooperative expression of the manifestations of human intellectual work and creativity, then this is fundamentally and radically in conflict with such formal organization as boards of directors or hierarchical organization patterns and employer-employee relationships. To the extent we need it, it is only to serve some limited purposes necessary in the economic and legal world as it is. Unfortunately, I think human history shows that structures intended to have such limited supporting purposes do not easily remain in this limited role--those who prefer to participate in them rather than participate in the volunteer non-organized side of the movement inevitably will find themselves trying to dominate, even if their personal ideologies are opposed to such domination.
There is no defense against this except the real strength of a volunteer movement--the ability to walk away and take our volunteer resources with them; the true merit of CC and similar is the ability to actually make this possible within the legal structure. That does not mean thatI advocate actually doing it, but we must maintain and remember the potential.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:49 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
In an organization where the purpose and Bylaws explicitly (Article II) call for it to be supporting the movement, the Board should be balancing that aspect anyways.
Yes, the Board cares for the Foundation, but the Foundation cares for the Movement, and if it stops doing that it's off chartered purpose and the Board needs to intervene.
George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:47 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
dvrandecic@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
will
be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
- the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
not
to the movement.
Hi Denny,
Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view. They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit
directors
an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
"... I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the
organization,
speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization accountable. " [1]
Sarah
[1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe