[Foundation-l] wikicouncil

daniwo59 at aol.com daniwo59 at aol.com
Sun Dec 30 02:51:47 UTC 2007

In a message dated 12/29/2007 12:42:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
erik at wikimedia.org writes:

- Do the  current criteria for Board membership -- making a lot of
edits on the  projects, being a valued community member, being elected
by your peers --  help to constitute a Board that can serve this

- If they  do not, how does expanding the Board with more community
members and,  simultaneously, creating a community-run Wikicouncil help
us when it comes  to learning lessons from the last year regarding
corporate  governance?

Just for purposes of clarification, can you please explain how this  
coincides with your election statements:
"This is why I have always insisted that the majority of the Board of  
Trustees should be made of (preferably elected) members of the community. It was  
partially my insistence that led to this principle being written into the 
_Foundation  Bylaws_ (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws) ."
"I would like to see our Board expanded to nine members. Jimmy has  indicated 
that he would not mind his status to be that of an elected member at  some 
point, which would mean that we could have 4 appointed members in  compliance 
with the present bylaws. This allows us to bring seasoned  professionals from 
outside our project communities on board, to assist in  matters such as 
fundraising, financial oversight, governance policy, and so  forth. That does not mean 
that these same skills should not also be present in  elected Board members. 
*But the community will, probably, typically focus less  on these skills and 
more on the content of their platforms, their conduct and  standing in the 
community, their cultural and intellectual background, the  principles they 
espouse, and so forth.* These factors, on the other hand, will  be less important 
for appointed Board members from outside the community.  And this is exactly 
what I see reflected in the existing Wikimedia Board of  Trustees."
In other words, you won the election, fair and square, campaigning on  a 
platform advocating a community-majority board. This is in contrast  with me, for 
instance, who campaigned on a platform advocating a professional  board. Are 
you saying that since the election, less that six months ago, you  have 
rejected your platform and adopted my position? 
On the one hand, I am glad that you have come around to my way of thinking.  
On the other hand, I am a bit surprised by this apparent inconsistency  in 
your position and, even more so, by what could be conceived as a failure  to 
represent the interests of your constituents as promised in your  platform.
Peace, love, and professionalism,

**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 

More information about the foundation-l mailing list