Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-27/Board elections/Dan Rosenthal

I became involved with Wikimedia first as an anonymous editor. I registered and quickly found myself editing daily. The concept of helping to make something that would be used daily by thousands of people was (and still is) absolutely fascinating to me. In terms of visible work, I'm very proud of the military articles that I've helped write in coordination with Wikiproject Military History, as well as the Very Good Article (equivalent to Featured Article) on Snipers that I wrote for Simple English. However, I'm most proud of my behind the scenes work for the foundation as an OTRS representative, and press contact/Communications Committee member. In those roles I've really had a chance to help the foundation continue its mission, by responding to legal complaints, speaking to the media for the foundation, and helping to spawn new partnerships (which I'll discuss more in a later question). As a board member, I'll be in a position to continue this work, and bring it to the next level. The role of the board is two-fold. First, it guides and oversees the WMF in furtherance of the foundation's mission -- to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. Put simply, the board sets goals and makes decisions to further that mission. It also has a secondary role in providing oversight of the WMF office employees. It's often easier to understand by what the role of the Board is NOT. The role is NOT to second-guess the office staff. It's not to be accountants, but rather to be fiduciaries. It's not to draft contracts, but to envision strategic partnerships that fulfill our mission and to empower and oversee the office staff in the execution of those partnerships. It's not to manage the day-to-day operations of the foundation, but to set goals and protect the ideals of our mission and communities. It's not "something to do for fun" but a complex and challenging role that offers immense opportunities to affect millions of Wikimedians worldwide. In the past, we have had candidates that have been experienced in a single area, but lacked in others. I bring a blend of many different skills that will be useful to the board. I'll be bringing a background in IP law specifically focused on free content and collaborative works, prior experience on a national non-profit board, prior budgetary management experience, contacts within the free culture community, experience in multiple roles as a Wikimedian, public relations experience, etc. Instead of having one person fulfilling each role, the board has a flexible, capable individual who is all of these things. One of my goals as a trustee is to create more correspondence with the community (via the mailing lists, on-wiki activities, possibly things like the Signpost or the various podcasts) about the actions of the board as a whole, as well as my own actions. The board has been painfully reticient about what they do ever since Florence/Anthere left. Some prior board members have come and gone without ever being clear about what it is they did. I intend to change that and bring a greater transparency -- it's something that I know I can do for myself, and I will do as much as I can for the board. Another major goal that I would like to do is continue my efforts to build relationships and strategic partnerships with like-minded organizations. As a Wikimedian, I've worked with these organizations to help build their relationship with the Foundation, and to find ways that both groups can benefit. For instance, I've worked with the Smithsonian American Art Museum to achieve a donation of much of their digitized collection to Commons, and built a stronger relationship between the foundation and the Smithsonian Institutes. As a board member, I will continue to expand on these relationships and help the foundation become stronger, more stable, and more content-rich. This is an area where board members can truly shine, and unfortunately they seem to have been content to sit back and let the chapters do much of the grunt work. I intend to lead by example in this field. It's difficult to say precisely without having access to the material the board has previously worked on. Some priorities I would like to see prioritized are: the development of steps towards a permanent endowment; a more aggressive stance towards publicizing our programming activities; more live programming events such as Wikipedia Academy, to enhance our projects; and the development of more strategic partnerships to acquire high quality content that can be used under our licenses. Much of this question I've answered in the previous two questions -- I believe that the board has not been as transparent as it needs to be (though the office staff have improved remarkably in this regard), and that it could be more aggressive in the publicization of our programming. As for the second half of the question, I believe that we are capable of giving more support to our volunteers than we have done in the past (something that I don't believe has scaled well with the foundation's growth). Issues of project governance are not the remit of the board. The board's job is to direct the foundation, provide oversight for the staff, and solicit donations; as well as ensuring that our mission is being followed. Issues of governance and policy problems should be decided by the communities, with certain special exceptions being determined by the office staff. If issues of governance or policy betray the mission of the foundation, it's the board's responsibility to ensure that the staff intervene. Beyond that, it's not for the board to decide. As I've mentioned previously, I've already had some practice with helping to build these partnerships for the foundation, and with events like the NIH Academy, I've had the opportunity to experience ways that the foundation can expand on existing relationships. In short, the foundation should pursue those partnerships that serve our mission -- those that empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. Partnerships that fit that description should be considered -- What benefit do they give us? What are we giving up in terms of future possibilities? What is the cost to us? Are we helping people? These are all questions that need to be asked. But beyond them all is the simple question: "Will the partnership enable us to more effectively fulfill our mission?" If the answer is no, then there is a very good chance the partnership is not in our best interest. The board are not meant to be accountants, though certainly a knowledge of finances, fiduciary responsibilities, and budgeting are important for trustees. The foundation has an Executive Director, a Chief Financial Officer, an Accounting Manager and Financial Analyst, and several employees in gifts, partnerships, and donor relations. It's their job to ensure that our budgets are properly developed and followed, and that our projections are accurate. It is the board's job to review their reports, ask them tough questions, and make sure the best interests of the foundation are being followed. Beyond that, the board is supposed to solicit donations and help assist with fundraising. I believe the current financial projections are feasible. With a more detailed breakdown of individual costs, I would probably make some suggestions to the Executive Director but beyond that, I believe that with the increasing amount of partnership, donor tracking, and business development work the office staff have been doing, we will be able to meet the projections. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, I'm more than happy to offer my expertise and services to Sue, Veronique, Kul, Rebecca, Rand, Anya, and Bill. The chapters are critical to the success of Wikimedia - just look at the German or Dutch chapters for an example of how they can contribute greatly to the content services of the foundation; or to the UK chapter (in either incarnation) for examples of how they can provide localized expertise as public and media relations outlets. Their visibility is an area where I think the current board has fallen somewhat flat. While attempts have been made to increase the visibility of chapters on the board, the seats have been filled in a haphazard way that does not seem to have much relationship to the chapters whatsoever. I would like this to change much more than it has done in the past. I'd also like to see more accountability and transparency from the Chapters Committee and I would support greater assistance to chapters early in the start-up phase. I've been involved with the development of a D.C. chapter, which proceeded for several months before morphing into the present (very-early stage) discussions on a broader north-east U.S. chapter. I've received zero help from the Chapters Committee, though the NYC and PA chapters have been very gracious in their time (especially Pharos, who I would like to give a special thanks to, and give him recognition for the incredible work he does behind-the-scenes for the foundation.) So on a personal level I would be quite dedicated to helping chapters through the development process at a much earlier stage than we presently do.
 * How did you become involved with the Wikimedia community? What contributions are you most proud of?
 * What do you see as the role of the Board of Trustees?
 * If elected, what would you bring to the board that it currently lacks?
 * What specific goals would you have as a trustee?
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is beginning an organized effort at strategic planning, in which the board will play a major role. What are the key elements you would like to see prioritized in Wikimedia's strategy for the coming years?
 * What do you think the Wikimedia Foundation isn't doing that it should be? What is it doing that it shouldn't be?
 * The English Wikipedia community is increasingly concerned with questions of project governance: who has authority to set and reshape policy, and who should?; how can a project so large, with so diverse a community, make collective decisions?; does consensus scale, or will some form of democracy be necessary to address the project's problems?; and many others. What role, if any, do you think the Board of Trustees can or should play in addressing governance and policy problems on individual projects?
 * Wikimedia's partnerships with outside organizations--including for-profit companies like Kaltura and Orange as well as non-profits and public institutions like Mozilla Foundation and various archives and museums--have becoming increasingly prominent. What sorts of partnerships should and shouldn't the Foundation pursue?
 * Over the last three years, the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation has expanded rapidly, with a budget growing from $3.0 million in fiscal year 2007-2008 to a planned $9.4 million in 2009-2010. What strategy should the Board of Trustees pursue in planning for future financial growth?  What is your view of the current financial plan?
 * What role would you like the board to play in fostering the initiation, growth and viability of local Wikimedia Chapters? What role do chapters play in your strategic vision for Wikimedia?


 * How does the Wikimedia Advisory Board fit into your strategic vision for Wikimedia? Are there any specific tasks you would ask of them as a trustee?  Are there critical areas of expertise that are not represented on the Advisory Board and you think should be?

The Advisory Board is a great panel of very talented individuals, but we don't seem to know much about how it is used. I'm told that the board has seen more usage in recent months than it has in the past. As far as the Advisory Board's tasks are concerned, I'd want to use them exactly as they are described: "to give the Foundation meaningful help on a regular basis in many different areas, including law, organizational development, technology, policy, and outreach." I do have one suggestion for an additional member that I would like to consider -- Professor Michael Carroll, a founding member of Creative Commons, and director of the Project on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (of which I am a member through my work with the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic). Prof. Carroll has been my mentor at American University, Washington College of Law and with the departure of Heather Ford, there is a void of Creative Commons experts on the Advisory Board.

Quite a lot has changed since I previously ran for the Board. First, the foundation itself has changed. It has grown significantly and faces different problems than it did when I last ran. In that time, I've dedicated myself to working for the betterment of the foundation, stepping beyond just my work as a press contact, OTRS representative, and Communications Committee member; but actively going out and meeting with the foundation's staff, finding ways that I could help out, building relationships and developing partnerships. I've been to both the old St. Petersburg office and the new San Francisco office, and I've developed strong working relationships with many of the staff. I've met with them and asked "What can I do to help?" and then gone out and done it. That's possibly the biggest thing that I can bring to the table: I haven't just talked the talk -- I've gone out and walked the walk. I believe this makes me the strongest candidate for the board, and I hope the community recognizes this and gives me the opportunity to serve as a Trustee. (Also, having three open seats this time doesn't hurt either).
 * You've run unsuccessfully for the Board of Trustees before. What has changed&mdash;with either the community or yourself&mdash;that you expect a different outcome?  Do you have different goals than the last time you ran?