Angela in http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-May/007241.html
How? Previous public Wikimedia meetings have led nowhere and done nothing other than highlight how few people in the communities are interested in _doing_ anything - as opposed to debating on mailing lists. [....] Nice idea... how about you suggest how that might happen? There are currently two community representatives on the Board, though it's increasingly obvious that the community are not using either Anthere or myself to get anything to happen. Anything that does happen comes through private mailing lists and an increasing number of internal processes that even Board members don't always have access to.
Anthere in http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-May/007298.html
One of the hardest things is to identify the needs of "system Foundation", talk about these needs, and read criticism from people belonging to "system Wikipedia", who have no beginning of an idea of where the need comes from, why it is critical... but who considers they have a say nevertheless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
I am still amazed at how quickly Wikimedia transforms, politically speaking.
Less than two years ago Angela and Anthere were voted into the first Wikimedia board. They had to invent their own role, as people had forgotten to discuss the mission of the board and decision making procedures in any detail. I repeat this remark that I made earlier, because I think it is important to not make this same mistake again when a CEO is hired or voted for (not that I favour a CEO per se).
In the beginning both Angela and Anthere opposed vocal members of the community who urged the board to take a stand in matters that were hardly or not at all discussed on the mailing lists. Kudoos for that.
Later we got closed wikis and private board chats as a side affair. Recent statements like the ones quoted above give the impression that both board members find the Wikimedia community has become a pain in the neck at times, better to be ignored, or kept in the dark. Fortunately they make these remarks still in the open, so there is hope :)
I still believe in both Angela's and Anthere's good intentions, they did and do generally a tremendous job, to be sure, and therefore I really think it is the burden on their shoulders that has become too large. May I suggest a wikibreak? After all Jimbo has returned to this mailing list after relative absence for several months. He can step in for a while I would hope.
I agree the board is understaffed. Or rather they have too many self chosen obligations. An attempt to introduce checks and balances in the form of a wikicouncil (initiative by the board!) died a quick death, maybe partly because it was hardly advertised, or maybe because it was launched too soon. So now we have a self appointed government without a parliament to guide and control them. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil Self appointed because the original purpose of the board was to serve for external representation, as a compromise towards an outer world that stil used the outdated paradigm of official representatives, see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-May/000065.html and what follows.
Let us assume a larger board would be the way to go. Anthere expressed her wish to have one board member from each committee. As far as I know most or all members on these committees were appointed by the board, without public vote or even much prior public discussion. I'd rather be called critical than cynical, so I'll resist the temptation to extrapolate where this 'representational model' might lead us in a year from now.
Erik Zachte