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

[Chad]

And to further clarify, I see the VC as helping to fulfill
this role. The VC exists not to replace existing Board
functions, but rather to supplement the Board and
assist them, IMO.

-Chad

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> Erik,
>
>  You said that:
>
>
>  >  We need to get over the idea that the Board somehow has to be deeply
>  >  connected to
>  >  - the project communities
>
>  I'm sorry, but there's more to being on the board or part
>  of the staff than just being good in a particular field (this is not
>  to put down the benefits of a professional-driven board). At the
>  same time, the Board _must_ remain intimate with the projects
>  and keep abreast of community sentiment. Without this, they
>  inevitably will make decisions that at some point are against
>  the wishes of the community they supposedly represent.
>
>  -Chad
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>  > 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.
>  >
>  >  From everything we know, Wikimedia is a very young, proud, geeky
>  >  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.
>  >  --
>  >  Erik Möller
>  >  Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>  >
>  >  Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  foundation-l mailing list
>  >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>