[Foundation-l] Hiring of Interim Executive Director and Legal Counsel

[Erik Zachte]

> On 6/14/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/13/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree completely.  I resist very strongly any separation of
foundation
> > > and community.
> >
> > How about a different point of view? Separated in concept, but united
> > in practice. I am aware it sounds very inclining to a certain cultural
> > background, but still daresay this idea itself can be applied to many
> > cases, specially we need to cooperate with each other.
> >
> > Separation itself is nothing wrong. Separation without communication
> > nor collaboration is bad, or useless at best, assuredly.
> >
> > If there is no separation, we require never two words or concepts: in
> > practice the community isn't involved into a certain matter which the
> > foundation cares for, and vice versa, I assume. If that sounds too
> > metaphisical or awkward, we might need another terminology, like
> distinction, instead of separation.
> 
> Delphine:
> Thank you for that. This is exactly what I think we should tend towards.

'Separated in concept, united in practice'.
It would have been a great subtitle for an Alexander Dumas novel. ;)
Aphaia or Delphine can one of you explain what this means?

Let me explain what I meant with the statement that Jimmy commented on. I'll
try not to repeat myself too much, but rather to expand and explain. 

The point made earlier about separation of foundation and community refers
to posts where people argue that the foundation has different
responsibilities, different legal liabilities, by necessity a different
modus operandi and even a different set of objectives, other than those of
the community. (paraphrasing here) Some made it sound as if the community
should mind its own business and let the foundation do what it knows is best
for all of us. (again paraphrasing) This is what I and others objected to.
We should not think of a foundation and a community as separate entities,
with operations that are mutually unconnected. I'm glad Jimmy endorsed this
view, though I am not sure we agree on the finer details, where decision
making dynamics are involved. 

Of course foundation and community are not identical. Not a dualistic
wave/particle entity. They are different. The foundation and the board take
responsibility for judicial and administrative obligations and committments
that need to be dealt with daily. By paying our bills, signing contracts,
guarding our rights, etc they serve the community. That is all fine with me.

The crux of the debate as I see it is: Can the foundation have an autonomous
role in defining Wikimedias long term goals, and even more important the
final say? Can the CEO and/or the board formulate Wikimedia long term
strategy by itself, decide which deals to strike with what kind of
corporations on which terms, and which grants to accept on which terms,
without clear, written and binding general principles a.k.a. mandate from
the community? Can the board appoint members from outside the community
(still hypothetical but hinted to by Jimmy) and explain afterwards that this
was the perfect candidate (compare CEO), or should the board use reason and
arguments to convince the community of its wise proposal and possibly stand
corrected ? 

Whether discussions on this list are representative for the vox populi is
anyones guess. If they are, about half of the community would like to see
fundamental changes in how that same community is represented. Of course
everyone may be tempted to think that the silent majority approves current
status quo by not complaining, but equally so one can think it approves
current criticism by not countering it. The silent majority is like a
portrait that smiles at you from every corner of the room, but to everyone
else at the same time. There is only one way to know what the community
really wants: let's ask them explicitly. Either by survey or plebiscite. It
would strengthen the sense of community if people cannot only express an
opinion (survey) but really exert influence (plebiscite0. Of course the
usual precautions against sock puppetry apply.

I'm in favour of chosen representatives, checks and balances, written
procedures, formally approved strategy. all of this without becoming overly
bureaucratic. Some slowing down might be inevitable but might be a good
thing when broad outlines are to be defined. I'll happily trust the board to
translate these strategical community approved outlines into daily tactical
decisons, and answer the community about them afterwards.

Erik Zachte