No subject

community. And it's the common fallacy of young people to
underestimate the value of experience. Work experience for
organizations with hundreds of staff in positions of management,
accounting, legal responsibilities means having hundreds of personal
case studies to draw from, hundreds of parameters to consider when
making a decision. Expertise _matters_.

Integrity can come from within or from without. "Not a wiki editor"
does not mean "person who will sell out the project to evil venture
capitalists at the next opportunity". Wikimedia is a values-driven
community; it is not the only one. People with strong convictions and
beliefs and passions _and_ experience who would support our cause
wholeheartedly can be found -- and they can be asked to commit to core
principles and values we hammer out. To a large extent we've already
done so.

The mixing of the senior managers, accountants, lawyers and the young
wiki volunteer enthusiasts into a single body is a recipe for conflict
and burn-out: One group has near limitless energy, the other has to be
conservative with its time; one group tries to make measured decisions
with long term implications, the other is highly involved in actions
taking effect immediately; one group tries to be vocal and visible as
members of a community, the other tries to be cautious and deliberate.

Different organizational functions call for different qualifications.
We've tried to fit everything into one Board. That was the simplest
model to start with when the organization was young. As we grow, we
need to achieve a mature balance that is sustainable. As Henning said:
If we want to become a charity of free knowledge, we need to start
thinking like a charity -- and that means drawing from all areas of
expertise, not just the obvious core volunteer community experience.
--=20
Erik M=F6ller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate