[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Anthere]

Gavin Chait wrote:
> Accountability is created by the tension that exists between groups that 
> watch each other.  Having a set of committees reporting to a single board is 
> simply a pyramid.
> 
> A director (CEO, whatever you wish to call the position) and their team is 
> one locus of control.  A board is another.  The board's task is to offer 
> guidance, select individuals to perform specific tasks, remove 
> non-performers from office and so on.  But the actual running of the 
> organisation is left to the director and team.
> 
> Reconstituting Anthere's list of committees into a set of line functions 
> overseen by a director would look as follows:
> 
> * Finance and internal audit - task is to ensure bookkeeping, and audit, as 
> well as assist auditors appointed by board; insurance can be pasted in here 
> as well.
> * Chapters - I'm assuming this has some oversight of the projects?
> * Communications and Public Relations - press releases, events, promotions, 
> as well as watching media for outside coverage, etc.
> * Information technology and technical development - server maintenance and 
> development
> * Special projects - should this simply be part of an enlarged Chapters 
> role?
> * Legal - specialist required in international law, trademarks, etc.
> * Fundraising - works closely with communications and PR
> * HR and admin - if you are going to have an office, you need to ensure it 
> gets cleaned, stocked with coffee / tea, salaries paid on time, contracts 
> drawn up ... that sort of thing

Just to clarify the discussion.
special project committee scope : 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee
chapter committee scope : 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee/Scope_and_area_of_delegation



> These are all simply technical roles - there is no assumption that they 
> would be a single person, or a group, simply tasks that may need to be 
> performed.  The board gets standardised feedback and has the right to 
> intervene to fire the director or any of the other role-players.  The board 
> does not run the operation, it simply has oversight and ultimate control. 
> The director knows that they report to the board.

Ideally yes. Not yet the case.

> Board's normally do not require a massive time commitment and so they can be 
> stocked with celebrities who are able to open doors (and consequently make 
> the fundraising task a lot easier).

There is a balance to achieve here. If you stock the board with big 
shots, you lose the continuity. And if you put too many community people 
  and big shots, you lose in efficiency.

I was under the presumption 9 could be a nice choice for us. With 
roughly 2 big shots.

You raise the issue of efficiency, in particular to make it possible 
that all members be able to meet together. Just for the reference, our 
last board meeting was in january.

> Typically, any organisation has the following core requirements:
> * financial control
> * marketing
> * strategic planning
> * operational support (includes: IT, legal, HR and so on)
> 
> You could, depending on the work-load, bundle many of these tasks together:
> * finance, internal audit, admin, hr
> * IT, technical development
> * chapters, special projects
> * communications, PR, fundraising
> * legal
> * director
> 
> So then you need six people in your head office.  Your board could be as 
> large as you like (remembering that the bigger your board, the harder it is 
> to get everyone to get together at the same time, or agree on anything). 
> The overall strategy - it goes without saying - can be the responsibility of 
> the board.  Implementation belongs to the director.
> 
> Anthere again:
> "Generally, I believe the projects will not accept *anyone* as head of a
> project, with absolute power. The projects organise themselves
> independently of the Foundation,  only respecting the general goal of
> the project and a couple of core rules (licence, wikilove and neutrality
> essentially)."
> 
> I don't suggest anything like absolute power (editorial control, that sort 
> of thing) but it is useful to have a person in charge who keeps track of 
> what is going on.  They act as champion for the project.  If you really want 
> to create a Chinese wall between the Foundation and its projects then you 
> have to have someone at any particular project that the Foundation can talk 
> to.  Someone has to guarantee the core rules will be applied.

Hmmmm, we actually had some champions in the past. I think we can 
qualify Erik as such for wikinews. I do not think the idea of a unique 
champion is fit, because this champion would have to be very little 
controversial to be acceptable by either side. I rather believe in a 
small group of trusted editors. This is already what is happening on the 
english wikipedia.

> It's no good simply cutting a perfectly good project loose when it crosses 
> the line.  Someone, tasked with championing the project, should have the job 
> of keeping the project inside those lines ... as gently as possible.  Only 
> when they completely loose the ability to control those guidelines should a 
> project be cut. 

Nod. This is what was done before closing the french wikiquote.