I would agree with the mixed approach. A board with an executive committee of community members, and a governance and audit committee of outside experts. There simply is no substitute for Board expertise - many crises have been prevented through trained and knowledgeable leadership above management. Additionally, I think there are benefits inherent in having 'outsiders' on the Board as long as they do not dominate it - an unbiased, outsider perspective is often extremely helpful and itself can avert many errors in judgement (see George Bush). I think there is no real danger of being bought - the bylaws seem to legislate against it, and certainly the community would be destroyed.
As far as perceiving Google as a threat - I think that is a mistake, really. An encyclopedic effort on the part of Google is no more a threat to Wikipedia than any paper encyclopedia has been (unless they go nuts and delist our links from search results). Rather, it is a furtherance of Wikipedia's mission - and evidence that it is successful and compelling. Competition, as such, can only improve the entire field.
~Nathan
On Dec 16, 2007 10:18 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love, without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.
Am I missing something here? Why can't we have a board made up of half experts on business, etc. and half experts of Wikimedia projects? (Hopefully with substantial overlap.) That said, I'd prefer a majority to be from the community. As long as they are willing to take advice from the pros, we should get (almost) all the benefits of a professional board with the decision making still in the hands of people that share our values.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l