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

[Erik Moeller]

On 3/18/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is certainly merit to that idea. The only concern I have is that
>  the board would almost certainly have precedence over the council in
>  any dispute between them (the board is legally responsible for the
>  organisation, so I can't see any other way it can be). This means the
>  outside professionals would have precedence over the community, which
>  makes me uncomfortable. I trust the professionals to make the right
>  business decisions, I don't trust them to have our values and ideals
>  at heart (hopefully, they will, but we can't be sure of it).

Whether you are dealing with volunteer wiki contributors or volunteer
professionals from other non-profit organizations, in both cases, you
are left with whatever they commit to before joining the Board until
they are either removed, resign, or their term ends. So, in both
cases, there has to be a basic trust that most people are not
deceitful, stupid, or evil. The problem, in my mind, is how to appoint
the Board members -- and that responsibility would almost certainly
lie with the Volunteer Council or some Nominating Committee it elects.

In an ideal model, I would like to see a requirement for future Board
members to have served in an advisory capacity for some time before
being appointed to the Board of Trustees -- effectively having
volunteered in a role that suits their qualifications, just as a wiki
editor does. But, in the beginning, I would suggest that this
requirement be relaxed, and replaced with an initial period of
acculturation and orientation before an appointment is made to the
Board -- a sort of "boot camp" for the first Board members.
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

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