[Foundation-l] [Announcement] update in board of trustees membership

Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 03:18:44 UTC 2007

> I feel there are two paths for the future. Either we keep a board mostly
> made of community members (elected or appointed), who may not be
> top-notch professionals, who can do mistakes, such as forgetting to do a
> background check, such as not being able to do an audit in 1 week, such
> as not signing the killer-deal with Google, but who can breath and pee
> wikimedia projects, dedicate their full energy to a project they love,
> without trying to put their own interest in front. A decentralized
> organization where chapters will have more room, authority and leadership.
> Or we get a board mostly made of big shots, famous, rich, or very
> skilled (all things potentially beneficial), but who just *do not get
> it*. A centralized organization, very powerful, but also very top-down.
> My heart leans toward the first position of course. But at the same
> time, I am aware we are now playing in the big room and current board
> members may not be of sufficient strength to resist the huge wave.

Am I missing something here? Why can't we have a board made up of half
experts on business, etc. and half experts of Wikimedia projects?
(Hopefully with substantial overlap.) That said, I'd prefer a majority
to be from the community. As long as they are willing to take advice
from the pros, we should get (almost) all the benefits of a
professional board with the decision making still in the hands of
people that share our values.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list