On 6/13/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:

Brad hasn't even had his first day on the job yet, so I think it's a little early to be asking where the timetables and reports are. This isn't even as far along as the process for replacing Tim Shell on the Board, and I think Jimmy's response on that issue applies just as well here. Let's have less haste and more speed. If you want to speed things along, I'm sure an outline of the strategy for conducting the search would be welcomed.

I wasn't asking for reports, only for guesstimates on when we might reasonably expect them. An update on the process by August 2006 should be possible, for instance. "Interim" can mean many things (in Steve Jobs' case, it meant "the CEO who never left"), and I hope there is consensus among everyone concerned that this is, indeed, a stopgap solution until we have identified an ideal candidate for the role of ED.

As for the strategy in identifying a future "permanent" ED, we need to first be clear on what the future organizational model of the Wikimedia Foundation is going to be. For instance, there is a resolution to create an Executive Committee:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Executive_committee

In spite of its creation being authorized by the Board, AFAIK nothing has happened since it was last discussed in the Open Wikimedia meeting. Do we still want this committee, and if so, what roles will it serve? What will its interaction be with the Executive Director? Will (all/some) of its members also be Board members (as is typical for non-profits)?

I personally prefer the term "Administrative Director" to "Executive Director" given that "ED" or "CEO" suggests a very broad scope of abilities and responsibilities which, I fear, for an organization like Wikimedia cannot really be united in a single person. For instance, I believe that R&D is a key function that needs to be driven and coordinated by the executive body.

Projects like Wiktionary(Z), Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikinews, and Wikicommons can only flourish if their specific needs are identified, and strategies are developed to meet these needs. The executive body (whatever it is called in the end) needs to set priorities, assign responsibilities, and communicate with a large group of individuals who bring ideas and capabilities to the Foundation. While I value Brad's legal insights and his professional background, I doubt he would be the right person to make such decisions -- and the same is probably true for any ED who meets the criteria of: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_CEO

The term "Executive Director" suggests that the person will be responsible for "executing" the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, when in reality, the tasks described on the above URL deal primarily with "keeping things running", rather than "moving things forward". I favor a larger Executive Committee with different roles, whose purpose is to coordinate and oversee the work of the individual committees. The "Administrative Director" in this model complements other roles such as R&D, community communications, etc. (who the ExecCom members are is the tricky question).

If, however, the "Executive Director" is to unite multiple very different capabilities in one person, then of course that will make it very difficult to find the ideal candidate for that role -- if not impossible.

I'd be happy to help develop an organizational model, but I'd also be interested in what plans there currently are, and what Brad's thoughts on the above matters are.

Erik