> We also need to be careful not to let too many people speak in the name of
> the Foundation whenever they feel like it.
What I believe to be more important is to not let the foundation speak in the
name of the people, whenever they feel like it, unless the Foundation is
properly democratically organized.
Uli-----------------
Agreed.
The Foundation is there in particular because there is a need for a legal entity to own things like servers. There is need of a legal entity to be able receive donations and use funds. And the Foundation is there to ensure that the spiritual lead of Jimbo is preserved.
All activities, be they of gathering, of organising, or of distribution of the knowledge should be in the hands of the wikimedians first of all. Not of the Foundation. The Foundation is there to provide a legal platform. The Board is there to ensure that the legal platform works properly, stimulate perhaps the natural evolution of the project toward getting more funds for functionning, toward proper use of these funds, according to the needs expressed by wikimedians, and toward distribution as perceived good by wikimedians.
But imho, it is not to take decisions for participants, nor to remove participants opportunity to do what they have been doing so well for three years.
To preserve the core principles of the project, the Board should just have some veto power for some critical decisions, but that is about it.I would dare to say (but that only my opinion) that what is *most* required in the following months, is not PR activity from the Foundation, maybe even not distribution organised by the Foundation, but is just setting the bases of the organisation, so that it is fair to all participants, preserving opportunity to get involved in any activity as it has been till now, as transparent as possible in its financial activity and, please oh please, as unbureaucratic as possible.
All participants have the opportunity to speak in the name of Wikipedia right now. Though there are a couple of cases when we are not so happy this is so, in the very very large majority of cases, facts have shown that it was really worth to trust any participant per default to speak *well* in the name of Wikipedia. No reason why this should change.
Ant