[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[GerardM]

Hoi,
I could not disagree with you more.

First off, we have to stay within the pertinent American laws. This is a
given. After that there is no reason why we cannot do, within the law, as we
like. Your argument that we could work for Wikimedia UK or DE is ill
considered, no board member works for the foundation.

Where you compare a parent with a kid just out of school, you assume that
the parent would not have qualifications. Assumption is the mother of most
fuck-ups. When the board indicates that they are operating in a way that is
sub optimal, you have to recognise that a lot of effort has been put into
finding a legal council and an executive director. These slots have been
filled. You have to recognise that they have done their utmost to manage a
staff that is gaining experience and that is too small for the task.

When the board is only to consist of American professionals, I am sure that
howls of protest will arise because these "professionals" are not likely to
represent our community nor our projects.

When you consider how inexpensive the running of the WMF organisation is,
then I do not understand your point of limiting expenses.. With more staff,
the costs will rise. We will look back in wonder of the "good" old times
when the bickering about costs was about the costs of providing a baby sit.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 2:07 PM, GerardM wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The reason why the norm of American charitable boards is relevant
> > up to a
> > point is that we are a global organisation. The point where the
> > American
> > norms lose their values in comparison is where an American law
> > stops giving
> > us options. When there is room for us to decide what is good, we
> > are allowed
> > to do so.
> >
>
>
> We are an American registered corporation. Because of that, we are
> obliged to follow American laws, and abide by American standards.
> Want to do things the euro way? Work for Wikimedia UK, or Wikimedia
> Germany.
>
> > We want the board to be a reflection of the people that make up our
> > community. We want these people be the ones that are most likely to
> > do a
> > mature job for us. I would rather have parents on the board then
> > another
> > bright kid who still has to learn much about the realities of life.
> >
> (disclaimer: this is not directed at any members of the board past or
> present in particular)
>
> I would rather have a bright kid who has a relevant professional
> degree and knows how to do the job of a board member than a parent
> with no such professional degree, and no experience being on a board
> of trustees. Come on, we already know the board, by their own
> admission, are operating outside the way they should ideally be, by
> having to micromanage staff and act as a "working" board. Would you
> rather have people who don't see what's wrong with that? Or would you
> rather have a board of professionals that will expand Wikimedia
> projects and ensure its financial, legal, and positional safety?
>
> > The amount of money involved in child care is not that much in the
> > grand
> > scale of things. When you consider the amount of time the board
> > members put
> > into their vocation it is a steal.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> It's not 100% about the cost. It's about limiting expenses, and it's
> about making the board a job of service, not a job of perks, or a job
> of resume building.
>
> -Dan Rosenthal
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>