[Foundation-l] Outsiders on the Board? (was Re: Poll for Wikistandards)

[Robert Scott Horning]

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>  
>
>>This is not an indictment of volunteers. I believe that they are the  
>>lifeblood of this organization. At our size, however, we are faced with enormous  
>>responsibilities. All of these efforts at reorganization are attempts to  channel 
>>volunteer efforts effectively, so that they can continue doing what  they do 
>>best--fulfilling the Foundation's mission statement by creating and  
>>distributing high quality free content resources--while limiting the  repercussions 
>>that the Foundation, and by extension, the volunteers, face when  things do not 
>>go right. This is something that requires professional legal and  financial 
>>knowhow.
>>    
>>
>
>Exactly. And while the pool of Wikimedians who can help is large and growing larger, that pool
>will not always have the right mix of skills we need to run the foundation (sic the oranization
>NOT the projects). Thus we will sometimes have to look outside that community to fill certain
>roles within the foundation.
>
>BTW, every board member is also a Wikipedian. :) Some just edit more than others.  
>
>-- mav
>  
>
Having been involved with several other very large volunteer 
organizations, I beg to differ that you won't find volunteers with the 
right mix of skill necessary for most aspects of developing with 
Wikimedia Foundation and associated Wikimedia projects.  If it continues 
to grow, I would agree that there must be some professional staff to 
deal with things like legal requirements and administrative overhead 
that somebody must do but nobody really cares to accomplish without 
getting a paycheck because it is pure drudgery.  I am continually amazed 
though at how many tasks that would appear to me as mindless tedium 
still get accomplished with Wikimedia projects, like the recent changes 
patrol and endless battles with trolls.

One of the critical things that happens with large volunteer 
organizations is that training becomes a critical attribute, where 
volunteers are trained in critical skills like leadership development 
and critical aspects of the organization to help that volunteer group 
accomplish its mission.  Usually you can even find "train the trainer" 
classes, and even people who conduct instruction for those people to 
conduct the "train the trainer" classes.  This is something that is 
currently missing from Wikimedia projects, where new leaders are usually 
developed by throwing them into a leadership position and left to either 
sink or swim.

An example of this is with the American Red Cross, where they have 
largely volunteers that run almost every aspect of their organization. 
 Yes, they do have professional staff that deals with the mundane day to 
day issues, but the bulk of what they accomplish could not happen 
without a huge group of volunteers that are activly involved.  The Red 
Cross also has a huge number of training sessions for these volunteers, 
and is constantly trying to get its volunteers trained on things like 
knowledge of First Aid, CPR,  and disaster relief.  None of these are 
skills that come naturally to any random volunteer unless you have a 
medical degree, and even then professional medical personnel still learn 
things through their association with the Red Cross that they would 
otherwise not learn.

I could mention examples from other very successful volunteer 
organizations, but I think this gets the point across fairly well. 
 Volunteer groups can be successful, and some very large mostly 
volunteer organizations do exist.  I would also add that there is a huge 
diversity of background from those who do participate on Wikimedia 
projects, and this diversity is something that needs to be exploited to 
help the growth of all Wikimedia projects.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning