I don't know why discussions on this list and elsewhere always devolve so quickly to revolutionary ultimatums. The board has not 'betrayed the community' - it simply took a step, regarding its own composition, that took a portion of the community by surprise. Many would have liked to hear about these changes in advance, to discuss them and potentially influence alterations to the changes before they became fait accompli. This doesn't translate to "We must eliminate the Board and start over with people who don't totally ignore the will of the community." As a matter of fact, I think those sorts of comments are untrue, unnecessary and insulting to the members of the Board who do, I believe, try very hard to do what benefits the projects and the community and try I imagine very hard to anticipate and understand the goals and beliefs of our community - and not just those few of us who post to Foundation-l. Confrontational statements and belittling and minimizing the efforts and commitment of those people we have elected to the Board is unhelpful and to be avoided. We can't require you to assume good faith on this list or outside of en.wikipedia, but you might take under advisement the fact that it would be a good idea nonetheless. Nathan On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2008/4/28 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com>om>: I figure the board's doing a scary and frequently difficult and tedious job, so am quite happy to assume stuff will be clarified after the fact if it isn't before. I'm sure it will be soon enough :-) - d.

It would be best for those critical of the Board (and feeling that the community is the most important ideal) to remember that whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, or would have selected an alternative reality or not, it is still the case that the Board is that which governs the Wikimedia Foundation, a US corporation, and is responsible for the ownership of its assets (servers, etc.) and has a legal, fiduciary obligation to act in its best interests. The Board members are themselves obligated under the law to act in the best interests of the Foundation. That as a matter of convention means giving due regard to "the community" whatever that term means, but the fact that the Board allows elections to put people up for Board positions in no way whatsoever gives "the community" an *entitlement* to that process or results. As is oft-repeated, WMF is not a membership organization. Within the spirit of civil discourse, to those who are feeling frustrated and demanding action, I submit - "so what are you going to do about it?" I suggest you be pragmatic. You do not have any means of grabbing the reins of power from the Board, and you don't have any entitlement to anything except your ability to participate in a project, if you choose, a chapter, if you choose, or to speak up in some forum. You don't have a "right" to vote on anything, and the Board could just as easily have a contest than an election to fill Board seats. I have always held that position that a Board composed of wise, talented people with a wealth of experience is the better form of corporate governance. Self-selecting fiduciary boards have served charitable and educational organizations honorably and well for over four centuries. Stop whining and ask yourself if you have the objective qualifications to lead an international organization. If not, work on obtaining the skills to be such a leader, if you choose. Toiling on a project is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a Board member at WMF. On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote:

David Goodman wrote: The people who create Wikipedia *do* run the projects, that is, they run Wikipedia. What they don't run is the Foundation or its board of trustees. I'm surprised when I hear people on this list suggest that the community can only get its voice heard every two years, when we're in fact editing Wikipedia every day, including the wiki pages that constitute its policies. The volunteer community also writes the software that is used. This was discussed already in 2003 when Jimbo set up the Wikimedia Foundation as it now is, rather than as a "democratic" membership organization. At the time, the opposition was voiced most strongly among the Germans, and one year later they founded their "verein" (membership association), Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., that became the role model for how to organize a chapter. However, still today WM-DE has only about 400 members, which is far fewer than the volunteer community in that country. The idea, that all Wikipedia contributors should want to have a say in a democratic fashion, turned out to be little more than a beautiful dream. There are some who want this, and they are free to join the chapter, but they are a minority. Shock and horror, even when they are given the opportunity, most contributors seem happy to have no formal influence at all. This could be taken as an indication that Jimbo was right in 2003. If you claim that people feel left out on a large scale, this is something you need to prove. Because Germany is proof of the opposite. Most countries have yet to organize chapters. Nothing stops them from doing so, as far as I know, but they don't seem to be in any hurry. Instead of getting themselves organized, some people cry out on this list that the WMF board of trustees should do the work for them. This is a great shame and a waste of time. Democracy can only grow from below, never be given from above. Board elections, volunteer councils, chapter seats, or not. They are only decoration. The WMF was incorporated as something else than a membership organization. They keep the servers running and promote free knowledge. I think they do a pretty good job. But they're not a membership organization. If you want one, you need to create it yourself. Who's stopping you? Background: I'm user:LA2. I was present when WM-DE was founded in Berlin in 2004, but never joined. In 2007 I helped organize the Swedish chapter and was elected to its board. I'm posting to this list as an individual. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

Lars Aronsson wrote: To be precise, the original bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation provided for membership, but it was never implemented. The bylaws were subsequently revised to drop the reference to membership as obsolete, since the foundation had been operating for years without it. Some months later, there was a bit of protest over the change, at least on the English Wikipedia. One of the reasons to incorporate chapters in the board selection process is because they are generally intended to be membership organizations, so that option is effectively re-opened. Membership can be administered more easily and with less overhead at the chapter level than the global foundation could manage. --Michael Snow

-------------------------------------------------- From: "Anthony" <wikimail(a)inbox.org> Uhm... I'm not sure that Brad could, in fact, speak for the Foundation, given that he resigned over a year ago. Philippe

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote: Wow, sorry about that. I know Brad "resigned", I just got him confused with someone else. My apologies to everyone for *my* rant.

Personally, I am more disturbed by the justification for the change than by the change itself. A. Decided to change its makeup in a way that would make only 30% of the Board be directly elected by editors, which is what a "community seat" had been understood to mean heretofore. B. Decided to change the definition of "community seat" to include seats appointed by third parties (the chapters, of which a vanishingly small minority of editors are members), so as to make it appear that the principle of a community majority was still being followed. As far as "A" is concerned, I have no strong feeling. I don't really see representation of the chapters as a particularly good or bad thing, just as I don't see representation of the "community" as a good or bad thing. The community, the chapters, the Foundation, and even the individual projects as such, are all only a means to an end. If the Board had come out and said, "we've decided it is in the best interests of the projects if a majority of the board no longer is elected by the community, for reasons X Y and Z," I personally wouldn't have had a big problem with it ... although, like everyone else, I would still have preferred some open discussion before the fact. But "B," frankly, makes my blood boil. I find it hard to believe that anyone above the age of 4 would be expected to fall for this kind of ploy. More to the point, I am concerned that a climate of obfuscation and doublespeak, even more than the existing climate of non-communication and opacity, *will* cause long-term harm to the projects. Frankly, people who refuse to respect the intelligence of Wikimedians -- by which I mean, in this case, our ability to identify and reject BS -- really shouldn't be involved in the management of the projects, regardless of whether anyone now has the power to remove them or not. In this regard, I sincerely hope that I and others have misinterpreted a substantial part of this discussion. Cheers, Sam Henderson / Visviva (EN Wiktionary/Wikipedia)

Thank you for this reassurance. I am astonished that the Board would not anticipate this (widespread) interpretation of events, or recognize that this change would be regarded by many as a power grab by insiders. Again, for my part, the presentation of this as if it were not removing power from the editing community (which it certainly is) is far more troubling than the actual removal of power (which may indeed be a wise move). I remain troubled. A general observation, if I may: The assumption of good faith becomes increasingly difficult to sustain as the power relations become less symmetric. (The limiting case of this would be assuming good faith in national leaders, which the events of the past decade have shown to be extraordinarily unwise.) At the moment the difference in power between individual editors and Board members is enormous, and growing. Much of this is for eminently sound legal and strategic reasons, but the members of the Board should understand that this means that they will need to account scrupulously for their actions if they expect to be regarded as good-faith actors. To expect otherwise is not only unrealistic, but frankly underestimates the intelligence of the editing community. Cheers, Sam On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: <snip>

OK, I really must be misunderstanding something. Here is what I think I know: 1. The proportion of seats directly elected by the editing community (i.e. in an election where the only substantial requirement is based on edits) is being reduced to 30%, more or less. 2. This reduction is taking place, in part, in order to allow representation of the chapters. 3. Chapters are not directly tied to the editing community. Indeed, one of their strengths is that they represent (or seek to represent) a broader population of stakeholders, significantly including non-editing users. I believe this was specifically mentioned on a parallel thread. If the above are correct, it would seem to follow that the change is a substantial reduction in the power held by the *editing* community, in favor of chapters which are -- by design -- not directly linked to the editing community. What am I missing? Let me stress again that I don't think this change is necessarily a bad thing. In the nature of a wiki, the editing community on each project is self-selecting and frequently myopic, losing sight of the broader purpose of the project. Chapters may prove to be much more reliable stewards of the WMF mission. But whether good or bad, this change does seem to be a historically significant shift in power away from editors as such, and toward a somewhat more nebulous notion of "the community." This simple fact (if it is indeed a fact) should not be, and should not have been, obscured. Cheers, Sam On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote:

Samuel Henderson wrote: There is a general move toward strengthening and expanding the chapter system as a scalable and thoughtful way to build the global movement. I anticipate serious growth in the chapters and chapter membership and for it to eventually be a much more common mechanism for editor participation in governance. I would personally like to see it become the default assumption that active editors become members of a chapter, not a requirement, but an assumption that most people make.

Dan Rosenthal wrote: And why not wait until the encyclopedia is finished before putting it up on a website for people to look at? The Wikimedia Foundation is a work in progress. For all the talk about being a unique organization, needing to think outside the box of traditional models, and partaking of the character of its community, sometimes I think we miss the ways in which it actually has those qualities. As some people have suggested, I'm sure the chapters will "be bold" in creating their part of the equation here, and will continue to "edit" it for future improvements. I would hope we do not stop evolving the global foundation while we wait for something to come along with the perfect conditions for change. --Michael Snow

2008/4/29 Samuel Henderson &lt;samueljhenderson(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: They're still not good at assuming an assumption of bad faith? - d.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:19 AM, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: People are upset they are not consulted and start seeing conspiracies behind it. Apparently "being bold" and "assume good faith" does not apply towards the board...

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Er, how could Brad be speaking on behalf of the Foundation? He is no longer an employee. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

Hoi, I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The board and the organisation are relatively unimportant; their function is to facilitate.They cannot do much else because they do not scale. They cannot support the 300+ languages that need support and they don't. It is not that they do not want to, they cannot. Languages are supported by Betawiki and its community. The real power is in doing things, making things work better. It is humanly impossible for either the board or the organisation to do more than enable the community to function. When you consider what needs to be done, like making our content continually and consistently available, find some university or technical high school students to work on this or find money and hire some contractors. It is not as if this cannot be done and it is not as if you need the board's or the organisation's permission to do this. What you need is to make sure that it is done in harmony with the existing people and infrastructure. You do not need anything to make a difference except for initiative and hard work to pull things off. I agree with you 100% that it takes involvement in order to understand what the issues are. The difference is that it goes two ways. If you want more people from the editing community to be part of the organisational infrastructure of our projects / communities these people will have to get their hands dirty and involve themselves. Editors, even prominent editors, do not necessarily make good organisers when editing and talking is all they do. Sadly as people grow more into these other aspects of what makes us function, their thinking will slowly but surely diverge from what their old crowd considers to be valid and true This is imho why some think that people "sell out" once they have a new role. Thanks, GerardM On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Brian &lt;Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu&gt; wrote:

2008/4/30 Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt;om>: Excellent! So when are we drafting him? :-D - d.

David Gerard wrote: Heh, he is just one random example, there are many like him.

2008/4/30 Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt;rg>: I was most pleased to discover many Creative Commons people (including Joi Ito) reading commons-l. Obviously, there's a common interest on that list. OTOH, foundation-l could be more than a little offputting to people not used to our little ways (it's offputting enough for those who are). - d.

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Anthony &lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: Beg your pardon, how exactly are "considering the atmosphere on foundation-l unpleasant enough not to join it" and "finding all the different activites of the WMF to be offputting" related? Of course we don't want people to join the WMF's board if they consider the WMF in globo to be 'offputting'. But surely, "finding foundation-l a not so nice place to be" wouldn't be a contra reason in my books (yes, implied self-criticism... I guess you'd hear three words: Signal-to-noise ratio. The civility has rather improved, I think, though 'assume good faith' could still be a bit more widely spread. But the signal-to-noise ration is still at a fairly embarrassing level. -- Michael Bimmler mbimmler(a)gmail.com

IMHO the problem is here focused. We imagine the experts like Christus which comes and start a revolution. The question is: are they so expert to make a change in the environment where they will work? I have already said some years ago that the communities choose their leaders (non the wikipedia community but a community in general), when communities are driven by other persons which are not the leaders, we have a manifest organigram and a different concealed organigram. With this condition frictions, disputes and bad feelings start. The elections of the communities assure that the leaders are represented and the two organigrams are partially overlapped. In this new restructure the two organigrams are badly overlapped. Putting experts in a complex environment like Wikipedia's communities it's a risk not for Wikimedia projects, but for themselves because they could not have the power to introduce a "new deal". Ilario Delirium wrote:

2008/4/28 Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt;et>: Indeed it does. With signatories like Seth Finkelstein, it just needs Daniel Brandt and Lir. - d.

A true ad-hominem argument. My apologies to the organizers. If I had thought ahead enough to realize that my spur-of-the-moment action might be used by the Wikimedia Foundation's UK press contact to discredit the petition, I wouldn't have signed it (I'm bad at politics). I'd un-sign if that would help anything, but I suppose the damage is done now. "A Man Can't Be Too Careful What He Signs These Days" [Stan Freberg] (Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, about the Declaration of Independence) J: Come on and put your name on the dotted line. F: I got to be particular what I sign. J: It's just a piece of paper. F: Just a piece of paper, that's what you say. J: Come on and put your signature on the list. F: It looks to have a very subversive twist. J: How silly to assume it; won't you "nom de plume" it today? J: You're so skittish -- who possibly could care if you do? F: The Un-British Activities Committee, that's who! -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php