Delirium wrote:
I'm also somewhat confused on this, and it seems
out of keeping with
standard practice. For example, most private universities (in the US,
anyway) have a Board of Trustees that is ultimately responsible for
direction setting (and in theory can order or veto nearly anything), but
in practice they don't actually run the university. Instead, various
executive staff subordinate to the board do that. When specific
expertise is needed, such as someone who can administer a large campus,
or someone who can manage the financials, they're hired, e.g. as
President or as Treasurer. But they aren't part of the board, which is
ideally made up of people selected for their commitment to and
understanding of the overall mission, not for their specific technical
skills.
The Foundation does seem to be going vaguely in that direction already,
for example with position of Executive Director, who has significant
executive authority but is not a member of the board. Is there a reason
that path isn't a reasonable one to continue on?
There is nothing wrong with this vision. The big distinction between
WMF and these universities is in their origins. I would be hard pressed
to think of a successful university that grew out of a grass roots
movement. Most of these institutions began with an imposed governance
structure fulfilling the needs of the state, the church, business or a
major philanthropist. In some respects we may have a philanthropical
origin, with governance structures snuck in as an afterthought.
On top of that we struggle with some tough philosophical problems about
what is an encyclopedia, or the accessibility of knowledge and its
ownership. These are intractable problems which established institutions
have successfully avoided.
Ec