On 6/20/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure what his problem with RMS and Eben Moglen are.
I don't have a "problem" with _any_ of the people listed bringing their substantial experience and allowing us to benefit from it. I have worked closely with Larry and Richard on the Free Content Definition, and their detailed and qualified feedback has been instrumental to get to the point where we are now. Doing so has also shown me how very different their perspectives are.
Their tremendous qualifications and immense contributions to our broader movement aside, as I said (and as Kelly Martin also pointed out), I think we need to think carefully about whether they need to be on the _governing_ Board of the organization.
RMS and Larry Lessig "battling it out", as you say, on the mailing list is one thing; them actually voting on whether we should adopt this or that licensing model is quite another. Here I think a full and deep understanding of the needs and practices of the community is required to make a well-informed decision, based, quite possibly, on the actively solicited _input_ of people like the ones mentioned.
For instance, RMS is a strong advocate of copyleft. Wikinews chose to adopt CC-BY, without copyleft. I could easily see such a decision escalating to a significant and avoidable Board level conflict. I could also see one of these appointees holding a key vote in a split decision. I would prefer the final call to always be made by he community, or at least by members of the Board who have some long term involvement there.
This concern is somewhat made obsolete if we choose to adopt an Executive Committee (a subset of the Board which reports to the Board), and where people like the ones mentioned would likely not participate due to time constraints alone. However, it remains true in any case that the Board is the final legal authority of the organization, and can restructure it as it requires.
I favor a Board fully elected by the community, which makes its strategic and organizational decisions based on a broad and diverse basis of information. An Advisory Council strikes me as the best way to achieve this. Failing such a Board setup, I would prefer appointees from outside fields that are not represented in our current group, and who will abstain on some of the issues where their qualifications do not come into play.
Erik