Talk:Independent board: Difference between revisions
(facts) |
m (de-linking) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The bad example is completely true, despite the false statement in the log - see [[Talk:Wikimedia corruption]]. It's entirely true to say that: | The bad example is completely true, despite the false statement in the log - see [[Talk:Wikimedia corruption]]. It's entirely true to say that: | ||
Some, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a [[board]], loading it instead with insiders, i.e. from | Some, e.g. [[Wikimedia]], refuse to have such a [[board]], loading it instead with insiders, i.e. from Bomis. One reason to avoid having such a board is to ensure that "friendly" people are in charge if their pet projects are someday audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who avoid scrutiny of truly independent directors. | ||
Facts: | Facts: | ||
Revision as of 13:39, 9 September 2004
The bad example is completely true, despite the false statement in the log - see Talk:Wikimedia corruption. It's entirely true to say that:
Some, e.g. Wikimedia, refuse to have such a board, loading it instead with insiders, i.e. from Bomis. One reason to avoid having such a board is to ensure that "friendly" people are in charge if their pet projects are someday audited. Very reasonably, most people refuse to contribute large amounts to such groups who avoid scrutiny of truly independent directors.
Facts:
- "Wikimedia" has got a few tens of thousands of dollars while well run projects with credible independent boards, like Rosetta Project, get millions to do similar work (like its all-language dictionary more effectively
- clearly Davis, Shell and Wales are "friendly" and that's why they're the majority on this "board"
- Wales has refused for YEARS to even consider an independent board, having been forced to hold elections by many people he can't run the project without, but having originally proposed to simply appoint the whole board himself.