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

[Erik Moeller]

On 3/18/08, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann at gmx.net> wrote:
>  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.

That's absolutely correct. There are specific organizational problems
that we need to solve:
- ensuring that the Wikimedia Foundation is in compliance with all
regulations governing 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations;
- ensuring that the budget and the financial reports of the Foundation
are sound and developed in accordance with best practices;
- hiring, evaluating and supporting the Executive Director;
- supporting the Foundation's fundraising efforts;
- approving the long-term operational plans developed by the Foundation staff,
etc.

Our election process is designed to identify people of integrity and
commitment and passion; these are the key attributes that have allowed
us to remain radical, open & independent. It is not designed, however,
to measure specific qualifications related to some of the roles above.
For example, it is not designed to find someone with accounting or
management experience. In fact, submitting a CV or undergoing a
background and reference check is not a requirement for becoming a
Board member.

But these qualifications are absolutely necessary for protecting the
organization. Just an example: It's very hard to do good hiring for a
position whose background is completely different from your own.
That's why Brion is the hiring manager for developers and not Sue - so
we can find great techies to expand our team. Similarly, to hire a
competent Executive Director, it helps to have significant experience
in the management of non-profit organizations. And so forth.

We need to get over the idea that the Board somehow has to be deeply
connected to
- the project communities
- the day-to-day questions facing the Foundation.

Dealing with challenges in both areas is the responsibility of staff &
volunteers. Staff are organized through the Foundation itself;
volunteers lack organizational representation. That's what the
Volunteer Council seeks to address: giving volunteers a forum, a
voice, a set of responsibilities.

Some decisions which were in the past taken by the Board (final
approval of new wiki projects, policies on licensing, some or all
agreements related to the chapters) could be delegated to the V.C.,
but importantly, it would also address questions which are only very
vaguely answerable right now: What to do when a conflict escalates
beyond a single wiki, how to investigate allegations of serious abuse
of administrative privileges, when to activate a software feature,
etc.

The V.C. would work with the staff on issues affecting the
communities, e.g. business deals affecting the projects, grant
proposals, etc. - the nature of that relationship would still have to
be developed, and a lot of it would probably be consensus-driven, just
like collaboration in the projects. Some decisions could be firmly in
the V.C.'s hand, e.g. final approval of organizational program goals,
approval of any change significantly affecting a project, etc.

In such a model, a Board of people with decades of non-profit
experience provides the necessary "last protection" for the
Foundation: protection against mismanagement, support of
sustainability efforts, protection against violation of core values,
etc. This does not mean that these people have to have 10,000 edits in
the projects. They could come from education, from projects assisting
developing nations, from the technology sector. But they would have
one thing in common: experience safeguarding _organizations_, rather
than wikis.