Salam,
I sincerely appreciated any effort to craft a reform for the Board of Trustees membership. Thank you, Dariusz and Todd. Also, apologize for (possibly) flawed English, since it isn't my first language :)
As a volunteer from the so-called Global South community, I'm much more concerned about the diversity issue in the Board. The issue here is that geographical and linguistic groups that are significant in the current state of our community should be proportionally represented. We must ensure that their voice will be heard on deciding important issues that might also affect them, in one way or another. Our current Board consist of no Asian or African, a very disturbing reality especially if we consider the immense potential and rapidly growing community in these two region.
Allow me to propose the Board composition I felt the most suitable to accommodate this issue. This Board will be comprised of fifteen members, all with same voting power:
- One Founder's Seat, reserved for Jimbo. While I believe that some might found this as a strangely contrast position for any reform needed by the Board, I think that we still need him in the Board as the voice of moderation and what makes us completely unique to other Internet institution. - Six regional seats, popularly elected by the regional communities. The proposed "regional communities" would be North America, South and Central America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Asia Pacific and Oceania. - Five at-large seats, or what we call today as community seats. Like the regional one, it will be popularly elected --- but by the whole community. - Three affiliate seats, elected by the affiliate and thematic organizations.
Yes, there might be some flaw in this proposal. The biggest concern will be how to define and categorize a project into a specific "regional community". Maybe we could categorize the editors based on where do they edit (English Wikipedia editors will be voting for European seat) or where do they reside (which also possibly will raise question about privacy etc).
Some might also question about why there is no more appointed seats. While I do agree with those who are saying that we need professional experts to sit in the Board, I believe that their power and influence should be nowhere more than the community to avoid another Arnnon-like controversy. So I would like to see them as members of the Advisory Board (as discussed in another thread before), possibly with increased function.
I'd be very grateful to know your thoughts.
Best,
Ramzy