In a message dated 1/29/2006 9:05:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au writes:
If Wikimedia needs qualified outside help, it's in operations, not oversight. Only an elected board, accountable to the Wikimedia community, can ensure that the principles that the community holds dear are upheld.
Some committees might benefit from the guidance of qualified outsiders, but the committees should still be dominated by volunteers, either selected by a transparent and fair process with Board oversight or, as Erik suggests, with open membership.
Actually, as Wikipedia grows it requires help in oversight no less than it does in operations. A large organization entails legal and financial responsibilities. If we are sued, for whatever reason, we cannot simply throw another server at the person suing us.
As I understand it, serving on the Board or in some other official capacity, such as officer, includes legal responsibility, including liability. It is not just the ability to make decisions that comes with a position, but the willingness to face the consequences. The issue is not who takes credit when things go right, but rather, who takes the blame when something goes wrong.
This is not an indictment of volunteers. I believe that they are the lifeblood of this organization. At our size, however, we are faced with enormous responsibilities. All of these efforts at reorganization are attempts to channel volunteer efforts effectively, so that they can continue doing what they do best--fulfilling the Foundation's mission statement by creating and distributing high quality free content resources--while limiting the repercussions that the Foundation, and by extension, the volunteers, face when things do not go right. This is something that requires professional legal and financial knowhow.
Danny