On 12/30/07, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
In my own experience of nonprofits, it has not been
considered
problematic for staff members to express opinions on matters of
policy, including organizational governance. At the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and
at Public Knowledge -- the three nonprofits I worked at before coming
to Wikimedia Foundation -- it was considered a benefit, and not a
conflict, for staff members to offer input about how they believed the
organizations should run. I would hate it if we felt we had to depart
from that tradition here.
To add to this: Either we have an open discussion or we don't. A
situation where Board members are able to comment freely on every
issue under the sun while staff members are heavily constrained does
not strike me as equitable or desirable, especially given that this
would lead to an over-representation of points of view from wiki
volunteers and an under-representation of legal, financial, technical,
and other perspectives -- under the current constitution of the Board.
My preferred approach would be one where we have open debates that are
clearly contextualized as such, and otherwise present a united front:
Board and Staff pulling together for a shared vision.
Best,
Erik