Birgitte SB wrote:
I certainly don't want to see an advisory group of 50% en.WP editors! However such token represntation as proposed in the Wikicouncil plan would be of little practical benifit.
The one practical value of "Wikicouncil" that I see beyond simply choosing board members or charter changes (presumably a useful funciton for such a body) would also be as a source to draw upon for the various committees that have been established for the WMF. I have been a very vocal critic over how the membership of these committees have been established, mainly because they are insular in their constitution and I believe they will have a strong anti-Wikimedia user bias, with strong hints of eliteism. If instead you say that you must be an elected member of the Wikicouncil, that gives a non-discriminatory approach to joining up, and permits newer (read smaller) projects from also participating as well.
This isn't to say that the wikicouncil proposal doesn't have problems, but I think the basic idea does have some merit. It also gives a way to "grow" board members, so that you can find people with both the leadership skills and the knowledge of Wikimedia projects that would be developed rather than making the leap to board member all at once. This would be assuming that you could follow the path of admin/bureaucrat/steward/community representative/board member of increasing responsibilities if you wanted to become involved. The other approach is to be a famous celebrity or have significant outside accomplishments (like being a former U.S. President, as an example) before you are appointed to the WMF board. I don't like this type of token board members, even though it is commonly done on other non-profit organizations. A third approach is to be a successful and well-liked professional staff member of the WMF. I think that some board positions should be reserved for this sort of person, if only to balance the board in its attitudes.