Your questions highlight the complexity of creating a new, representative
corporation. It would be a lot simpler to just convert WMF into a
membership organisation with members electing the majority of board
members, and the board appointing expert trustees.
The latter involves the acquiescence of the board, though. Without that,
the former - an new, representative body - is all we're left with if we
want the people who make and run the projects to control the purse strings,
as opposed to the current situation where the techie tail wags the
encyclopaedist dog.
Anthony Cole
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi fellow Wikimedians,
If we are seriously going to consider an expanded Community Council as an
alternative to WMF BoT reform, we need to have a real discussion about what
"devolution" would mean, and what specific responsibilities we think should
be given up, and distributed to a broader community governance.
For example:
Should the WMF BoT devolve a non-core portion of the budget? How would the
core portion be defined, and the non-core aspects?
Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects of the approval or closing of sister
sites? (Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikinews, a potential genealogy project)
Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects related to Wikimania and related
regional meetings?
Thanks,
Pharos
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart <kelson(a)kiwix.org>
wrote:
On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote:
> I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of
the
last few
days:
Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals
(like,
> saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of
movement
leadership or community representation. Not because they think it
shouldn't
> happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board
of
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles
to fill.
>
> I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as
> members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should
think
> about that and talk about that carefully
before rushing into details
like
board
reform.
Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org
within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and
fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on
different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens
to
> have specialized in those roles.
>
> This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to
> coordinate and represent and look forward.
>
> And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a
mismatch
in
> hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in
> communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very
important
we not
make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might
be
needed.
Delighting to read this. That said, the path to achieve this looks
pretty challenging. Would the WMF be able to organize such a move and
"give-up" parts of its duties/activities to better focus on core
business?
Emmanuel
--
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web:
http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter:
https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more:
http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>