Ray Saintonge wrote:
James Hare wrote:
Anyways, in that case we would have the Board of Trustees, the Advisory Council, and the Wiki Council. Three councils. Why should we have three? Why couldn't we compress it down to, oh, 2?
They would serve different purposes. As I understand it
The Trustees would pretty well do what they do now. This is essentially deal with the business, legal and financial interests of the organization.
Nod.
The Council would be made up of active Wikimedians, and could be involved in the detailed co-ordination of projects in a way that best assures and balances with the autonomy of each project. It would have limited decision making power within pre-defined parameters.
Nod. And *if* we decide so (and *this* of course is controversial), they could be a body elected board members. Or, if the board appoints some of its members, it could be the body suggesting a list of names (of wikipedians or of external people) to the board to pick up some future board members from it.
The Advisors would mostly not be active Wikimedians. They would help to keep us abreast of developments in the broader community, help in co-ordinating with outside projects, or even with lobbying. They would have no decision making powers.
Nod. Note that the advisory board already exist and that we will start populating it in 2 weeks time. Reminder: I am still waiting suggestions of people to add on this board.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-November/011353.html
Ant
Ec