On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Thomas Dalton [email protected]wrote:
2009/8/25 Nathan [email protected]:
This is good news. It doesn't seem strange to me at all that a major
donor
gains a limited voice on the Board, particularly when the donor can offer expertise and connections in addition to funding. It also serves as a
more
plausible explanation for Halprin's appointment than the conspiracy
theory
about Wikia, corrupt practices and misuse of tax-free funds.
The cash is obviously useful, and I think this kind of arrangement is fairly common in the charity world, but it will inevitably cause drama in the community.
That fight was lost years ago when the Wikimedia Foundation became a non-membership organization. I doubt this is "fairly common" among membership organizations. Wales was right when he said that the community is irrelevant.
We voted for these Board members, in most cases repeatedly; it does them a
disservice to essentially accuse them of abusing the trust granted them
by
the community.
I don't recall an intention to sell seats on the board being mentioned in any of their candidate statements...
We don't even know (yet?) which board members voted for and which voted against this arrangement.