[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Anthere]

Anthere wrote:
> Gavin Chait wrote:
> 
>>The most immediate concern for the Wiki Foundation is less the idea of an
>>office with furniture and windows, or even the difficulties of
>>collaboration, mostly it is continuity.
>>
>>At the moment the founders are involved.  They have an idea of what they
>>want and how to achieve that.  There are now thousands of regular
>>contributors who are influencing that direction.  There are millions of
>>occasional contributors who muddy the edges.  How do you ensure continuity?
>>
>>One of the first development organisations I worked in 15 years ago was a
>>student-run endeavour at the University of Cape Town.  Every year hundreds
>>of students volunteer and contribute to different projects.  Each project is
>>run by older students.  Continuity is difficult where students graduate and
>>leave each year.  Sometimes entire projects vanish when the students who
>>know how to run them fail to come back.
>>
>>The solution was to employ a small band of professionals whose task is to
>>make sure that projects are properly budgeted and accounted for, keep track
>>of how the different projects interact, and ensure that the overall emphasis
>>of the organisation remains focused.  The professionals ensure consistency
>>while the volunteers contribute fresh ideas, fresh thinking, new directions
>>and lots of enthusiasm.

A few thoughts however. It is not correct to say "the founders are 
involved". One is still involved and the other long left the project and 
regularly comment on it, but as an outsider.

I think it would be incorrect to oppose the founder as the stable one in 
comparison to all the contributors (the ones vanishing). Many of us 
(more than a handful) have been there for several years. Some even have 
been there since the beginning of the project. I consider them just as 
stable as Jimbo.

It is very likely that these old-timer currently ensure consistency, 
whilst the band of professionals (who may be old timers or may be 
absolute newbies) do not necessarily do so. To be frank, a good part of 
the "fresh thinking" of the past few months came from a newbie, working 
for us as a professional... whilst us old-timers ensured the stability ;-)

In our organisation, the volunteers themselves offer stability. Much 
more than professionals are likely to do.

Which raise another big issue for me. We are currently considering 
expanding the board. In a way that I can understand, it is likely that 
at least part of the future board will not be constituted from community 
people such as Angela or I, but rather of big shots, who may be great 
people, with potential great input and probably very precious to the 
Foundation. But who have two main defaults as far as I am concerned. All 
the names considered are from a continent over there...accross the 
ocean... not Africa if you see what I mean ? So, a loss in diversity. 
And all of them will actually bring fresh ideas... but also instability.

So yeah, offices are far less important than continuity. Just have to 
see how we can best ensure continuity :-)

ant


>>It has worked well for more than 50 years for this organisation.
>>
>>Offices are far less important than continuity.  And the more you rely on
>>volunteers, the more important it is to have a solid base of professionals -
>>where-ever they may be. 
> 
> 
> you speak a lot of sense.
> 
> 
> Ant