A few years ago I developed a micro-enterprise project called The Thousand
Rand Challenge. It set entrepreneurs the task of starting a business for
SAR 1 000 (US$ 150). This sets limitations and constraints on what can and
cannot be done. If you're a zealous believer in unrestrained thinking, you
may believe that I was deliberately holding entrepreneurs participating in
the project back.
However, all I was doing was admitting the very real constraints that
totally impoverished communities have as far as fundraising is concerned.
As soon as we admitted this then it was astonishing as to what ideas people
came up with that allowed enterprise to flourish. Over the past few years
we have developed whole new development ideas based on these constraints.
I hear the fears that many people have expressed about the constraints that
will occur with set responsibilities, set functions for boards, professional
involvement and so on. But you have to admit that a large number of
limitations exist already.
You can't just change the logo and layout of the various wiki websites. You
can't simply change the content to anything you feel like. You can't
discuss any topic - even from a neutral point of view (discussion addressed
in "Adult and Illegal content on Wikimedia projects" in April). Not
everyone gets to have an opinion all the time. At some stage a decision
must be made and debate must stop so that the organisation can move forward.
A constitution creates a formal framework in which debate can take place. A
board can be composed of members appointed from the community as well as
from initiators (Jimbo, Anthere, Angela, as suggested by Mark). And
professional staff appointed by the board, with a set of responsibilities
and tasks as set out by the board and community, can be responsible for
carrying out the objectives of the Foundation. The professionals are
answerable employees of the Foundation. If you don't like the direction
they're going in you can get rid of them.
Those tasks can be defined in a wiki - closed or open for participation, but
definitely open to community scrutiny. This isn't the CIA, we can know
who's appointed to do what.
We admit what we know. We admit what we don't know. And this allows us to
move forward.
Many organisations do fail to adapt and change. Their rules become more
important than the spirit that created the organisation in the first place.
With the level of activism obviously and clearly presented here I don't see
that as a concern that needs to worry anyone. You're always going to get a
hearing even if you don't have an official position.
None of this means that mistakes won't be made. Making mistakes, admitting
them and fixing them is far less troubling than making no decisions at all
for fear of alienating those opposed.
This isn't old fashioned thinking - it's terribly modern. Call it
orchestrated freedom if you like.