In a message dated 1/29/2006 9:05:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au writes:
If Wikimedia needs qualified outside help, it's in operations, not
oversight. Only an elected board, accountable to the Wikimedia
community, can ensure that the principles that the community holds dear
are upheld.
Some committees might benefit from the guidance of qualified outsiders,
but the committees should still be dominated by volunteers, either
selected by a transparent and fair process with Board oversight or, as
Erik suggests, with open membership.
Actually, as Wikipedia grows it requires help in oversight no less than it
does in operations. A large organization entails legal and financial
responsibilities. If we are sued, for whatever reason, we cannot simply throw another
server at the person suing us.
As I understand it, serving on the Board or in some other official capacity,
such as officer, includes legal responsibility, including liability. It is
not just the ability to make decisions that comes with a position, but the
willingness to face the consequences. The issue is not who takes credit when
things go right, but rather, who takes the blame when something goes wrong.
This is not an indictment of volunteers. I believe that they are the
lifeblood of this organization. At our size, however, we are faced with enormous
responsibilities. All of these efforts at reorganization are attempts to channel
volunteer efforts effectively, so that they can continue doing what they do
best--fulfilling the Foundation's mission statement by creating and
distributing high quality free content resources--while limiting the repercussions
that the Foundation, and by extension, the volunteers, face when things do not
go right. This is something that requires professional legal and financial
knowhow.
Danny