[Foundation-l] Fwd: The foundations of the Wikimedia Foundation (was: Wikimedia Council)

[effe iets anders]

2008/1/2, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro op gmail.com>:
> Bi-yearly (or "biannually") if I understood correctly. As I understand
> it those who are going to be elected in June of 2008 will stand till
> 2010 (please correct me if I am wrong); and those whose term continues
> to 2009 will be up for re-election then, to another two year term, or
> something like that...
>
> I have to confess that the vagueness of Antheres statements on this
> matter gives me some pause.
>

I meant that we elect every year board members, not per se the same
seats. If we elect this year seat A and B, and next year C and D, we
elect every year two board members :) (and can give a signal that way)

> <lots of other good comments about what advice might be useful from outside>
> .
> .
> .
> > However, as might be clear by now, this does not mean that the
> > community representatives are no longer needed in the Board of
> > Trustees. Because there is quite a difference between representatives
> > in the Final Authority, and an Advisory Council.
> .
> .
> .
> <talk about the size of the board of trustees, which I won't comment on>
> .
> .
> .
> > To summarize: It is necessary to have both community representatives
> > and external experts with their specific skills in the Board of
> > Trustees. A Wikimedia Council should be comparable with the current
> > Advisory Board, but then for volunteers. It is not necessary to have
> > all experts in the Board of Trustees, but they might very well be in
> > the Advisory Board too. It might though be wise for the Board of
> > Trustees to involve these experts then somewhat more actively.
>
> This is the point I would like to focus on. How vital is the necessity to
> have these experts directly on the board? That is as a trustee who
> votes directly on bylaws etc. Wouldn't it be possible to consider what
> could be directly delegated to the board of advisors (and other organs
> of the foundation where outside contributions would be welcome), if
> the wish is for certain matters to be handled by non-community
> experts?
>
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>

I think that a few expert board members have certainly their
advantages. As I said before, it will for instance force all board
members to stay focused, and it will make sure that in a case where it
is experts vs community, both parties will have to try very hard to
get a majority. I also think that experts do add a value to the board.
They can make sure that the board pays attention to the right things
(and can enforce this, as they are member of it, and equals, not just
advisors), they will be able to directly use their contacts in a good
way etc. I think that these experts are actually most usefull when
their help is not wanted by the community members :) Because those are
the moments they will make the difference. Therefore I see it
necessary that they will be part of the board, and as I said before,
50/50 would be ideal imho, considering Jimmy 50% community, and 50%
expert :) (assuming overlap is not possible here ;-) )

BR, Lodewijk

BR, Lodewijk