[Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/8/28 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> > I think the main valid reason is that it's kind of rude to ask someone
> like
> > Halprin to commit a certain portion of his quite valuable time to the
> > project, absolutely free, and not to even allow him one board vote (out
> of
> > what, 10 now?).
>
> I don't see why. I donate lots of my time to the project and don't get
> any board votes.


With all due respect, I'd say your time is worth a lot less than his.
 Besides, not all people are like you.

I would hope (and assume) he took the seat because he
> supports the cause not because he is power hungry.


I would too.  Absolutely.  But there's something to be said about
specifically having a power not granted to you because you're deemed
untrustworthy.  In fact, on a smaller scale I think that's one of the
reasons Wikipedia works.


> > I'd rather see a system for experts where "the community" (with a better
> > definition than just whoever makes X edits) ratifies the nominees made by
> > the nomination committee, or at least one where "the community" has the
> > power to remove members.  But I'd rather see the Wikimedia Foundation as
> a
> > membership organization...  So whatever.
>
> That is an interesting idea. A ratification process wouldn't be too
> difficult logistically and would help keep the real power in the hands
> of the community, where it should be.
>
> The WMF as a membership organisation would be great, but I don't think
> it is practical.


It's not practical in the sense that there's not a snowball's chance in hell
of the board agreeing to it, but I don't see why it's not practical
otherwise.  The biggest reason people give is that they would want to become
a member without revealing their identity.  To them I say either get over
it, or contribute to the individual project(s) without having membership in
the foundation.

Of course, that leads back to the fact that some (many?) people are not
willing to volunteer for an organization when they have a power not granted
to them because they are deemed untrustworthy.  Of course, in this case, I
say we can do without those people.