[Foundation-l] About transparency

[Ilario Valdelli]

Personally I disagree with this vision (There is a board because
legally an association requires to have a board), because there are
some requirements by the management to have persons who can help them
to have historical knowledge about the projets and to have an in depth
knowledge of the communities. The management itself declare that.

IMHO the board *has got* this knowledge (and not a single person in
the board) because the board is heterogeneous, come from the
communities and all members seems to be (or to have been) wikipedians.

Without the board the management could take wrong ways.

The advantage of the board is that *the board change* with addition of
new persons who can bring *new* visions and *new* relations and *new*
experience.

Personally I disagree any action of the management towards communities
*without* board's consultation: it could be a suicide.

Ilario

On Dec 28, 2007 12:44 PM, Derrick Farnell <derrick.farnell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Found the below interesting little piece about the Foundation on the web (
> http://www.timshell.com/wikipedia/whyboard.html). I think it would help
> matters here if the current board stated whether it is still true today. As
> I stated earlier in this thread, I'm not just concerned about the demise of
> 'radical transparency', but also about the fact that the decision to kill it
> off was apparently made without consultation with the community.
>
> Derrick Farnell