the movement is always going to be broader and more diverse both in
backgrounds and interests than any possible board; the foundationis ls
going to have more diverse concerns than the roles of almost any of us in
the movement.

I do not se the fundamental goal of the movement is to create an
encyclopedia . Nor is it even to create  free intellectual resources.
Rather, the movement is to create a model of free human interaction and
work,  and the initial  way of exemplifying this is in the various versions
of the encyclopedia . (It's also to create the free Wikimedia software, but
the cooperative creation of free software existed long before our
movement-- the encyclopedia was innovative, at least in execution and
possibly even in concept--Wikimedia was not.

If we really believe in a model of free cooperative expression of the
manifestations of human intellectual work and creativity, then this is
fundamentally and radically in conflict with such formal organization as
boards of directors or hierarchical organization patterns and
employer-employee relationships. To the extent we need it, it is only to
serve some limited purposes necessary in the economic and legal  world as
it is. Unfortunately, I think human history shows that structures intended
to have such limited supporting purposes do not easily remain in this
limited role--those who prefer to participate in them rather than
participate in the volunteer non-organized side of the movement inevitably
will find themselves trying  to dominate, even if their personal ideologies
are opposed to such domination.

There is no defense against this except the real strength of a volunteer
movement--the ability to walk away and take our volunteer resources with
them; the true merit of CC and similar is the ability to actually make this
possible within the legal structure.  That does not mean thatI advocate
actually doing it, but we must maintain and remember the potential.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:49 PM, George Herbert <>

> In an organization where the purpose and Bylaws explicitly (Article II)
> call for it to be supporting the movement, the Board should be balancing
> that aspect anyways.
> Yes, the Board cares for the Foundation, but the Foundation cares for the
> Movement, and if it stops doing that it's off chartered purpose and the
> Board needs to intervene.
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:47 PM, SarahSV <> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
> > wrote:
> >
> >> To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
> will
> >> be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
> >>
> >> - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
> not
> >> to the movement.
> >>
> >> ​Hi Denny,
> >
> > Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
> > They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit
> directors
> > an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
> >
> > ​
> >
> > ​"... ​
> > I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the
> organization,
> > speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
> > accountable.
> > ​" [1]
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > [1]
> > ​
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to