I think there are two separate issues on this debate.
1. Are the Trustees expected to serve as the "top" for us?
2. Is the meeting of the Trustees that important compared to others?
For the first question, I think the majority opinion is that the Trustees
are supposed to listen to us, serve as, and act upon our (multilingual
wikimedia communty's) concensus. And from what Angela and Anthere expressed
when running for the election, we can believe that they want to do that.
Mark should not worry that much, and I think many people are not that
different from Mark's view on this issue.
But sometimes, the Trustees have to make decisions on behalf of wikimedians
without clear concensus - just like wikimedia administrators are pressured
to do sometime. There may be no clear concensus. The matter is kind of
urgent that there is no time to consult with wikimedia community. There may
be some technical dimensions regarding how to interpret the concensus into
concrete actions and technical choices.
Because of these situations, we elect someone we can trust. Someone who
knows wikimedia better, someone who is not likely to abuse the discretionary
power. Like the admins for wikimedia projects, they do handle important
matters. But they do so according to community concensus.
So the answer to the first question is no.
Of course, there is a hierarchical structure to an extent. But this is
supposedly a positive move from the Jimbo's dictatorship to more democratic
governance.
And as in the case of administrators' actions, transparency is important so
that we can monitor and give feedback to the Trustees whenever it is
beneficial.
Regarding the second question, it seems that this is more of a matter of
belief so far.
- Some believe that face-to-face meeting is very important. It is even a
matter of principle for some - Trustees expenses should be reimbursed, that
is the way it is supposed to be.
- Others believe that compared to the cost, it has merit.
- Others may believe that compared to the cost, it does not have enough
merit.
- Yet others believe there are always better ways to spend money than this.
I am surprised to see that so many on this list seem to be on the strong
supportive side.
In the future, there might be a meeting in the U.S. Is it okay to pay, say,
1500 dollars to reimburse the travel expenses of the two Trustees from
Europe? I don't know. I would like to know the agendas for the meeting and
think how important it is, rather than to say "Trustees should always be
paid for that."
But if we decide not to pay, it means that some quality people might not run
for the next election because they do not have enough money to attend the
meeting. This is not a happy consequence for us, either.
Best,
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/