[Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

[Henning Schlottmann]

Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> A Resolution To Restrict The Number Of Appointed Members To The Wikimedia Foundation Board Of Trustees.

I strongly believe this discussion - as well as the volunteers council 
and all others regarding representation of the editors - is going into a 
wrong direction and realizing this resolution would be detrimental to 
the future of the WMF.

While the WMF started out of the Wikipedia and today is best known for 
hosting the projects, its scope goes way beyond that and right now with 
the move to San Francisco and the build up of professional staff, WMF 
takes the necessary steps to reach out. So over time hosting Wikipedia 
and all the other wikis will be only a small activity among others.

In my eyes, binding the majority of the board to the community of 
editors would be a burden, not an asset, as editors to Wikipedia will 
very soon don't know much about the activities of WMF, and being based 
in the community of the wikis will not be helpful for the tasks of a 
board member.

The Red Cross started with emergency services for wounded soldiers. Does 
anyone here really believe that it would be helpful if two thirds of the 
board of directors in Geneva would be elected by army medics of the world?

The WMF is working hard to become the "Red Cross of Knowledge" (c) 
Jimbo. It is moving beyond the wikis and we - the editors - should set 
the WMF free, not bind it to our communities.

Henning Schlottmann, user:H-stt (de, en, commons, meta)