Well Mr. Wales, if you believe these people have very good ideas for Wikimedia (and they most likely do), then I really don't see the harm of appointing them. However, has something like this worked with other non-profit organizations? Sincerely, James Hare On 6/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

For fun and nostalgia, and because half of the people mentioned below are on the original list, here is a very old, speculative and good-humoured meta discussion of an "ideal Wikipedia board" before Wikimedia existed*. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_ideal_Wikipedia_board These old discussions can be refreshing; WP and the WMF have followed one course, but there were many other sister roads that might have been followed, each with its own tone. SJ * The "less dreamy, but more practical, version" mentioned at the top was something this (a cross between nostalgia and deja-vu... if you look at the people involved in the conversation) : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Archive1 On 6/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: -- ++SJ

On 6/19/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'd LOVE to see Wikipedia used to force Creative Commons and FSF to work together. We're the 800-pound (or 800000-pound) gorilla in the category "users of the GFDL" and I'd really like to see formal license compatibility. Using the Wikimedia Foundation board as a mechanism to do so would be wonderful. Other suggestions (always interested in non-American equivalents): - Michael Hart or Greg Newby, Project Gutenberg (Newby is *great*) - Karen G. Schneider, kgs(a)bluehighways.com , (former?) Internet Librarian for American Libraries Online, http://www.ala.org/alonline/and the Coordinator of the Librarian's Index to the Internet (LII), http://lii.org/ (IM: LIIchief) - Roy Tennant, http://escholarship.cdlib.org/rtennant/ , creator and editor of Current Cites, http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/CurrentCites/ - Tim O'Reilly, O'Reilly Publishing (if we want to get into making a dead-tree version) - Larry Page / Sergey Brin - Al Gore I don't know the right names, but someone who's been really good at advocating for improved resources/outreach into the third world, third world civil rights etc. would also be a great addition outside of the "obvious" choices. I'm reminded that when Steve Jobs wanted to start Apple Stores, he got the CEO of The Gap on the board--someone who knows nothing about computing, but everything about retail. So what would be the equivalent for the Wikimedia mission? I would think that, say, a former top UN official could be very good for Wikimedia; someone who would know everyone in all the countries of the world and know how to manage a multicultural coalition. Kofi Annan? Madeleine Albright? I'm sure people can come up with better ideas.

On 6/19/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: Is having a highly prominent -- and still very active -- political figure on the board such a good idea? Something like that will inevitably raise questions about Wikipedia's neutrality in political issues; particularly if his presence on the board _does_ provide significant benefits to the WMF, it will be assumed that said benefits are a direct result of some quid pro quo political deal on our part. -- Kirill Lokshin

The Cunctator wrote: Hoi, On the Holland Open conference (last week) Eben Moglen gave a keynote speech on the Saturday. One of the things he mentioned was that on a conference in Barcelona, there will be a first draft of the GFDL 3. He also mentioned that he hoped that it will make it easier to combine both GFDL and specific Creative Commons licenses.. I think I remember he mentioned the 26th. Eben also mentioned that Jimmy Wales was truly instrumental in many of the changes that will be included in the newer GFDL. :) Thanks, GerardM

On 6/19/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: Angelina Jolie? Works with U.N. without all the political implications of Kofi Annan. Downside: May give Christine a bit of a stomach ache considering Jolies past experiences with co-workers. ;-) Okay, I'll try and be more serious, I just couldn't help myself. --LV

Hello all, I think it is very good to think about this kind of stuff, but maybe i missed a more general question, without asking about the exact person. However I do understand the enthousiasm of people when the idea exists to get Eben Moglan or another famous guy (I missed the women, but maybe overlooked them?) on the WMF-board, but I was wondering if someone could inform me why exactly we would need those people. Is it because they have a good insight, because they have certain qualities to *do* stuff, or that they could promote the concept better, as they are more famous, and will network better? Probably all of these reasons will be a part of the redenation Jimmy followed. But I think that with the current way the board is organized, the members of the board do a lot of stuff, and have to spend a very big amount of time on WMF, prevents maybe that the people named are willing to participate, but it would maybe also prevent that their qualities will be fully used. The board is pretty small now, and the percentage of "famous" people, who are *automaticly* buzzy too, will increase quickly when they are admitted to the board. I don't want to say that is bad, but that it might need also then some restructuring in the way the board functions. So I think it might be a good idea to think first of all about if we want prominant persons at all on the board (the answer will probably be yes though) and secondly, as Jimmy mentioned before, we should think about what kind of prominent person we want. Do we want someone with specific knowledge, do we want to bond the WMF through this boardmember to a certain type of organization, do we want someone active in politics so the ideals of the WMF can be spread that way, etc etc etc. Maybe it would be more usefull to think about this kind of questions first before we start with names. The discussion gets quite soon complicated then usually. This way we don't have to say people are bad or not famous enought also, as we are searching to find someone who fits into the profile, after we found a profile :) I hope my two cents are usefull, greetings, Lodewijk aka effeietsanders (that guy with the long weird name) 2006/6/19, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort(a)gmail.com>om>:

Jimmy Wales wrote: I think appointment to the Board of outsiders is going to be a disaster which discourages participation in the middle level tasks between the casual dropin participants and the Board. I would be interested in what experience people think is unavailable from the existing participants. If a summary of the skills and experience desired for specific tasks or responsibilities became available I suspect we could find people within the existing projects to run for election to the Board or for appointment to special committees. If we need input from people who are famous for some reason we can invite them to address the mailing list or stand for election. I would also be curious about how much time and effort these famous people have to apply to the Wikimedia Foundation Board's responsibilities. Are they finished with their prior responsibilities or they are so excellent that they can juggle responsibilities effectively on several Boards? regards, lazyquasar

On 6/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Seems to be a great guy. I've read his book "Free Culture" which I'd recommend to anyone who wants to know more about his perspective on what it is the free content movement is fighting for. That said, I think one need only look to the license of that book (Creative Commons Attribution/Non-commercial) to see where there's room for concern as to whether his philosophy fits with Wikimedia. Don't know much about him. Could be interesting. I certainly like the idea behind his (abandoned) Gnupedia project currently at http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html. But putting him on the board, especially in an appointed as opposed to elected position, could very well cause a culture clash with the community. It's hard for me to tell what his philosophy is with regard to free content other than free software. I'd definitely love to see him on an advisory board. How 'bout the guy who came up with the idea to use wiki software to build an encyclopedia? Larry Sanger! (yes Jimbo, that last comment was "trolling") Anthony

All of these names, and several of those named later on in this thread, would be admirably suitable candidates for the advisory board. Whether they'd fit on the governing board or not is a touchier issue. Kelly On 6/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

The Cunctator wrote: Nod. One problem I have with your list and with Jimbo's list is that they propose very few great candidates from Korea or Madagascar. ant

On 6/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: These are the obvious American free culture / free software representatives. As I've said before, we need to think carefully about what we are trying to achieve. If this is for the purpose of fundraising and expression of mutual respect (I know you are on the CC board already), then an Advisory Council would do just fine, and would allow us to put an arbitrary number of people there. Would I want Eben Moglen, RMS or Larry Lessig to vote on our copyright policies, or on what new project to approve, or on what personnel to hire? Most likely not. Would I want Mitch Kapor, a key advocate of Mozilla's current corporate approach, to vote on whether Wikipedia should allow advertising? Definitely not. Nor do these people bring truly different perspectives to our organization that we do not already have. In other words, we do not have to search much in our community to find people who think exactly like RMS. Yes, they are crucially important in the movements they represent. But we are already well known and well established in that scene. Please review the typical descriptions of non-profit Board responsibilities, e.g.: http://www.idealist.org/if/idealist/en/FAQ/QuestionViewer/default?section=0… Note that I believe Wikimedia is substantially _different_ from typical non-profits, so any standard recipes do not apply. However, the responsiblities of the Board are fairly clear, and in our context, the Board -- even with a decreased role in day to day governance -- has a very substantive role in defining the future of our project. Deciding to literally give a share of that future to an outsider is a very serious move. Much more serious than, say, removing an inactive trustee from the Board. If you go down the route of appointing a substantial number of outsiders, at the very least you should consider delegating a subset of that authority and responsiblity to an Executive Committee. But I don't see a strong reason to do this in the first place, and none has been put forward. What are the reasons we need RMS, Lessig, or Moglen on our regular governing Board? Again, if you want fresh thinking on the governing Board, and people who actually participate, then I think we need to look in the worlds of - access to knowledge in the developing world - eLearning and ICT skills development - academia and education - languages, internationalization, localization - freedom of speech (think Chinese Wikipedia) - digitization, archiving and metadata - ... These are areas which are not truly represented in our current group, nor can we easily find experts here in our community. They are, however, critical to the success of our organization. Again, I am not convinced we need these people on the governing Board, but I'd prefer someone who _doesn't_ have a strong, preformed opinion on many of the copyright and policy questions that will come up. A group of only Americans would be regrettable. If you, in spite of my objections above, want people from the free software / free culture community, you might consider people like [[Georg Greve]] (FSF Europe), [[Volker Grassmuck]] (Wizards of OS organizer, has written an excellent book about free software / free culture), Markus Beckedahl (Netzwerk Neue Medien, very involved with Creative Commons), [[Konrad Becker]], someone from FFII.org, someone from CCC e.V., ... there are lots of possibilities. Jean-Baptiste should be able to come up with a few other good Euroepean suggestions, but I'd also like people from the developing world in particular. Erik

On 6/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] [snip] Of course you don't. Should we decide to accept someone who is qualified and experienced it would preclude selecting you.

Anthere: North or South Korea? Difficult choice: The former will surely add a different perspective from what we have now. Also their system for representing the people is very efficient. The latter has more dotcom millionaires with plenty of free time. Madagascar gets bonus points for the capital with the most beautiful name: Antananarivo. Erik Zachte

On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: I will leave it to others to decide whether your comments represent a personal attack or not. If they do, and you continue to make them, I hope that you will be put on moderation. I do not participate in discourse on that level. Erik

On 6/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: I am not at all meek, Gregory. However, I make an effort to contain my anger, and to transform it into productive energy. I will not dignify your messages with further responses. Erik

On 6/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: So you believe Erik opposed Lessig for being pragmatic enough to believe that there is a place in the world for unfree but not outrageously limited content? I'd hope that Lessig would realize that "free as in beer" media is already done rather well by NPR, and that while there is a place in the world for unfree things, that place isn't Wikimedia. I'd hope so, and nothing from my limited conversations with him has suggested otherwise... It would seem to be rather disrespectful to dismiss him on the basis of such presumptions. As above these people have a proven track record and substantial experience. They may hold some views which are incompatible, but we can't know that based on assumptions and our own criticisms related to circumstances which are vastly different from our own... It's clear that they all have vision and experience which could benefit us, and a proven trackrecord to back up their claims. It's not like anyone is discussing handing them board seats without discussion. Presumably they aren't here arguing on the list because they are busy getting something done. :) Absolutely, I don't know enough either. But I know enough not to dismiss them off hand... The claim that we're so different from everything non-profit, everything free culture, etc.. It sounds rather ridiculous to me. People are very polarized about RMS. I think people fall into three groups about him, people who are just clueless, people who respect his work but have never argued with him, and people who have had an argument with RMS. (Arguing with RMS is like arguing with a highly intelligent brick wall). :)

Gregory Maxwell wrote: Hoi, Sorry to butt in. But I can testify to Erik DOING things.. Have a look at http://wiktionaryz.org Much of the technical work done is his. Erik has published many designs for improvements of the MediaWiki software, asked for comments and modified the designs where needed. Many of these projects he proposed are now active parts of projects. Erik has had an effect on all projects; he was largely instrumental in creating Commons and Wikinews. You may not like the guy, you may not like his ideas but he certainly has proved that he influenced the Wikimedia Foundation and he is certainly one of the more influential people of our community My question would be: do /you /know your who is who and, what is /your /claim to fame.. ?? I know you from the mailing lists .. Thanks, GerardM

On 6/20/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think that is probably a good idea. I would like to hear Brad's thoughts on this, as he is now the legal counsel and interim director of the Foundation and can best estimate what level of outside expertise is required, at least on an operational level. One thing to keep in mind is that we can get a lot of pro bono help, and that this model works well in areas where advice is not critical. Erik

Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hello, When personA questions personB importance/authority in an organisation, that does not mean personA claims to be famous himself. Ant

Lord Voldemort wrote: Errr... Erik explicitely said he was interested in a position on the board... But whatever. Actually... we have used advice from outside parties on a pro-bono basis. For newbie, that means someone accept to work for free for the Foundation - in exchange, they (the person or the firm) get some fame/advertisement and most presumably, this can be deduced as "gift to a charity" in term of tax. This was for example the case of Brad law firm and is the case as well for a PR agency giving us advice from time to time. Other "legal" entities have also helped against fees (I do not know if we got a "special" price). I believe RMS and others regularly give "advice" to how the Foundation or the projects should be run (just as journalists, librairians etc do ...). These advices are given to Jimbo during conferences they attend together. We have from time to time some feedback about opinion of one or another about the way we should go for licensing or other topics... My only problem with this type of "advice" is that the advice is not given to the board, but to Jimbo. If the Foundation was to pay for advice, I would ask that the Foundation be informed. Not one member exclusively. This said, I would be hesitant to pay someone to give me some advice... with the full knowledge that the advice would be entached with the personal agenda of its provider (surely, Lessig would not advice us against his interest). Note that this is also the reason why I am not so happy with having a famous person with a strong agenda on the (governing) board. ant

Erik Moeller wrote: I do not think you were stupid to do so :-) ant

Lord Voldemort wrote: I suggest we try to get _both_ Bill Gates _and_ RMS, just to see what would happen. -- Neil

Anthere wrote: I agree with this concern, but how to address it? I do not know of any prominent leaders either "outside" or "inside" Wikipedia from either Korea or Madagascar... or similar places. It is not hard to find community leaders in France and Germany and Holland and Italy and... all of the countries where the "international crowd" has good connections. It is harder to find community leaders in Japanese and Chinese... we know a few but there is unfortunately not as much communication there as we would like, etc. In terms of well known outsiders to bring into the board for oversight and vision and specific talents, again, Korea and Madagascar and similar, hmm, we lack knowledge. -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

Anthony DiPierro wrote: I never said I wanted to be on the board. Anyway, free content has its advantages, but I don't see it as either realistic or even good for it to replace all other sorts of content in all situations. -- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org

Jimmy Wales wrote: This is where contacts from within Wikimedia projects are very valuable. zh.wikipedia has a great many contriburors and interested participants, many of whom have "credentials" that I believe are exactly what you are looking for as well. You seem to have discounted that Wikimedia users have a single mindset or background, but from my experience there is such a huge diversity in backgrounds and environments that there shouldn't be too much difficulty finding a few people from other places to be involved. How about this list as potential "leaders" to represent Wikimedia projects from a chinese perspective: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers/sysop I'm sure the list can be narrowed, but it would be a place for me to at least start from. I would argue that it would be very difficult to find a greater variety of individuals on this planet than lists of admins on the various Wikimedia projects. Indeed I would issue that as a challenge to anybody who might want to suggest any other group of approx 10,000 individuals that has more diversity in terms of languages spoken, political and religious backgrounds, and economic status. -- Robert Scott Horning

Anthere wrote: Well, I haven't been to Korea or Madagascar. :) My travels have been mostly in Europe and the US. In Taiwan, I met and liked very much Theodoranian and KJ. (I met many more Wikimedians there too, but those are the two with whom I spent the most time). In India, I met no Wikipedians who are very active. In Brazil, I met no Wikipedians at all... but I am going there next week (so is Soufron) and hopefully there will be a meetup in Rio. The truth is, I am as Eurocentric as anyone, both in my travels and in my community friendships.... with possibly a bit more as mentioned above. -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

On 6/20/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: Perhaps. Watching chimpanzees beat each other up can be pretty entertaining, too. But if we are to adopt the social standards of chimpanzees on this mailing list, I demand some free grooming. For the record, I have not criticized the people mentioned, and if my original message came across that way, I apologize. I have a lot of respect for all of them, and have worked closely with two of them. I have questioned the notion, as have others, of having opinionated outsiders on the _governing_ board of our organization (rather than in an advisory capacity), exactly because they are opinion leaders and very knowledgeable in the fields they work in, which are highly relevant to our day-to-day work, while having no involvement, experience and visibility in our community. I have mentioned before possible alternatives from other fields. None of them are me. The notion that I am campaigning here is absurd. There is no election, and I have about as much a chance of getting appointed as Daniel Brandt or Sollog. And what a great honor it would be to be allowed to waste away more hours for Wikimedia without pay, while receiving a litany of complaints from people who want their sock puppets checked, their admins tarred and feathered, or their crackpot theories about using orgasmic energy to run jet engines featured on the Main Page -- all the while being accused of being part of some grand shadowy conspiracy to make every single human being on the planet read a copy of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". I've lived with a Board member for a year, I know how much fun it can be. Am I anxious, eager, enthusiastic about the idea of joining in? "No, Kiddo, at this moment, this is me at my most -- masochistic." Erik

Paweł Dembowski wrote: I absolutely agree with Paweł here, and so would (for example) Richard Stallman. There are certain types of works which are better off freely licensed, and certain types of works which are not. Anthony DiPierro holds a different position. Enough said. --Jimbo -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

Erik Moeller wrote: /me picks a bug from Erik hair. And eats it. Seriously people, let's relax a notch or two, ok? I think we have to recognize that there is a fair amount of trolling going on in this list, which would naturally have the goal and purpose of putting good people like Erik, Cunctator, Anthere, me, and Gregory Maxwell at each others throats. As far as I am aware, "Assume Good Faith" allows for much better conversations than all this sniping. :) Erik gets major points here for understanding what it is like. :) --Jimbo -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

Nah, Jimmy isn't turning into Anthere, nor is Anthere turning into Jimmy. All the Wikimedians are very, very slowly merging and assimilating into each other as one grand Wikimedia being. On 6/20/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Erik Moeller wrote: /me hopes Jimbo will adopt her board structure as well

Anthere wrote: For community members, I can easily come up with several names... basically, each of the top people in each of the chapters, for example. (For some of the new chapters, there are people I do not know.) Kurt, Arne from Germany. Ryo, Soufron from France Alison from the UK Frieda from Italy There are also the newer chapters which have wonderful and talented people. (And I should add that it is 1:15 AM and my mention of specific people above was not meant to leave out other people... these are a few who I have worked with a lot, and recently, but there are many others.) For non-community people, people with an outside perspective, I am not sure that there are people of such global stature and fame as Lessig, Stallman, Moglen, Kapor, etc. I am very open to ideas to be sure (and some ideas have been offered... good ones.) -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

Erik Zachte wrote: As I understand it, the North has never activated its top level domain name. Such a board member could have difficulty travelling to on-line meetings. ;-) eC

On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:07 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: I have always viewed Jimbo's suggestion that we "distribute a paper encyclopedia to African children" as quixotic but I have in connection with a possible board member wondered if we could create a series of documents which focus on public health which would prove useful in Africa, possibly also in China and other regions, and be worth distributing as part of a public health education campaign. There was lately a cholera epidemic in Angola which affected most of the country. There is a lot of ignorance involved in this sort of situation. I don't see this project so much directed to children as to local decision makers. It would contain information about disease and disease prevention, etc. The question, bottom line, is would a project of this nature actually prove effective? Or should we first see if we could even mobilize around it? One of the good aspects regarding this possible board member is that he is a hands on, computer literate guy with experience in give and take. Fred

Anthere wrote: The idea is commendable but strikes me as well beyond the scope of the things we do. We are more in a kind of educational publishing business rather than a vehicle for mibilising health care. Our information could include medical information, but publishing that information is not enough. We could include "The Barefoot Doctor's Manual" in Wikisource. (The English translation was published by the National Institute of Health in 1974, and that would likely make it copyright free as a US government publication despite the claims of subsequent reprinters.) But the advances in Chinese medical practice at that time involved more than just publishing a book. It was a textbook for teaching. Putting it on-line won't do much for people who don't have computers. What the barefoot doctor mobilization did in China was was bring medical care to rural areas where no care at all was previously available; one should not, therefore, judge the skill of these practitioners by reference to the medical personel in developed countries where there is access to sophisticated equipment and drugs. What's needed is to mobilize local people, give them a basic level of medical training, and send them out through the country where, as much as possible, they can use indiginous supplies in the practice of medicine. This may seem like quackery by Western standards, but it's better than the nothing that that public currently has. Our role in this can only be very limited. Ec

Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hello How having servers in Africa would help the goal ? Ant

Gerard Meijssen wrote: By dramatically, what do you mean ? Do you have statistics to show the speed of delivery for a same page, in USA, in the Netherlands and in South Africa ? But would the drawbacks of finding and coping with a partner be significant with regards to the current percentage of readers for which there would be an improvment and for the level of improvement ? Frankly... I do not follow you here. Whether the site is hosted in Africa or hosted somewhere else is likely to be invisible to the great majority of reader. I gather most will not care... nor even ask themselves who host the site. Actually most readers have no idea what hosting means... it would help our I do not see how hosting the site on the African continent (say South Africa) will increase the percentage of translation of the software... It would help the adoption of MediaWiki as a Which might be nice, but is not the goal of the Foundation. The marketing value for our projects is I am not convinced. We also have hosting provided in Korea. Do you think it improved marketing value of our projects in Asia ? Do you have figures ? It would also help make the use of African languages I certainly see the benefit of having mediawiki interface translated, I just fail to see how hosting Wikipedia and other sites in Africa will help use of African languages more acceptable :-( Interesting data !

On Jun 25, 2006, at 12:45 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Ok, Vrije Universiteit is in the Netherlands. What project do they have which relates to Africa? Fred

Fred Bauder wrote: Hoi, They are building an application that allows the hosting of Wikipedia content in a peer to peer basis. When successful it means that people can opt to run a Wikipedia peer on their hardware. This peer network would know what information is in demand and distribute it accordingly.. So when a certain topic is in the news .. the network would react by bringing more copies of the data to where it is in demand. This would overcome among other things the current problems with peering agreements between ISP's. They are at the stage where they need real life (anonomised) traffic details to test the distribution of traffic in a big private GRID network. Thanks, GerardM

On 6/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Forgive my ignorance, does anybody know anything about Thomas Malone from MIT? (http://ccs.mit.edu/malone/) He seems to be very into collective intelligence. I know nothing of his politics or views of freedom of information, so I thought I'd ask. Note: I am not putting forth his name for the Board (he seems pretty busy), I was just wondering if people in the know, namely you guys and gals, knew anything about him. Please forgive me if he has been discussed previously. Thanks. --LV