On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
My case for the converse is a worry about corruption. Community members
who
have devoted a significant portion of their lives to the project and demonstrated their gut-level appreciation of the value and necessity of
the
projects are far less corruptible than interested and talented
outsiders;
while the breadth of the projects' appeal has granted us the benefit of contributions from experts from all walks of life.
I see no reason to think this is true or false. It is an interesting speculation.
Perhaps I should start with the simpler claim that talented people who have already given of their energies to contribute somehow to the projects make more devoted stewards than those who bring talent an 'outside perspective' but don't get where the projects originated.
This is a strawman. The current board is a good one, and recognizes
that
the power to organize, inform, and guide the projects' social and
creative
content movements lies with the community. The /reason/ that this board
is
wise has to do with its history, its long experience with the projects,
and
its community membership.
And that board, with all that experience, has come to an understanding born in a long process of work that we need some outside expertise on the board, and that we have not managed to get the kinds of expertise that we need solely by drawing from a community process that has tended to choose excellent community members and editors (who we also need).
You distinguish the current process from the community itself -- which I posit contains all of the skills so far suggested as needed. I think that a year spent immersed in one of the projects is a better preparation for board membership than many other pasttimes, and think that dedicating some resources to being able to effectively seek out specific talent within our community is something those concerned about hand-picking talents for the Board should consider.
SJ