Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-27/Board elections/Thomas Braun

• How did you become involved with the Wikimedia community? What contributions are you most proud of?

I'm most proud of my "mentees", who stay as active "workers" in the wiki-community and write good articles, or do otherwise usefully contribute to the wiki-project. Maybe it's also a little bit my merit as their mentor.
- How I became involved? - Oh, that's very easy - I was looking for some information on a certain subject in the internet, but I couldn't find it ...

• What do you see as the role of the Board of Trustees?

I cannot see it different from [1]!? The board/head of a federation has the duty to serve their members!

• If elected, what would you bring to the board that it currently lacks?

My candidature is no critisicm of the board's work! I'm just one of the simple volunteers working for wiki, and so I know the base - and that is most important to do a successful work. I'm experienced in leading honorary organisations and so I know, how to prevent and cope with problems, ... but sorry, I'm not the man to praise myself.

• What specific goals would you have as a trustee?

Most important is, to guide the foundation into a secure future. And there are two things of utmost importance - a save and stable financial planning and keeping the volunteers (like me) motivated - especially by reasonable decisions in accordance to the wishes of the editors. I think, one should not pump up the foundation too fast, but pay much attention to the quality of the projects' contents. The work-capacity of the volunteers is limited, and to disperse this capacity to much is dangerous. Also wiki has a good reputation today, we must try to improve it in the future.

• 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?

The Foundation can plan, what it can afford! Not more and not less - I'm not yet a member of the board, so I hope/think, they've thought about ... I did not take part in the discussions. In my personal opinion, the strategic planning has to be very strict, without depts, in order to keep the independence of the foundation untouched. The foundation must not be pumped up to a gigantic "air bubble" - and explode - like the stock-market - and vanish. We must pay great attention to the quality of our projects - and our independence.

• What do you think the Wikimedia Foundation isn't doing that it should be? What is it doing that it shouldn't be?

Well, here I just can repeat my answer from above. The Foundation can just do, what it can afford. All projects are useful and more or less important.
Technically I think, it might be useful to have a more skilled "Search-function". So when You a looking for a subject, that's not on Your "mother tongue-wiki", You should not have to use "google", but a wiki-search-function. ... and I personally have a further idea (but that is of secondary importance): - "original research" on wiki. In this case there would neither be a classical Customer nor a classical Contractor, and so the typical constellation of interests would not exist. In this way for instance, Review-Studies in medical sciences could be worked out. If this idea needs in the beginning an own project is a matter of discussion. (This is one of my ideas, since I first came in touch with the internet (I think it was in 1995) :-) ).

• 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?

To ask the Community is most important for a successful work ... . And I don't see why it should be a real problem to proceed in that way.

• 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?

... very carefully and not without the agreement of an overwhelming majority of the volunteers working for wiki. Otherwise the foundation may risk to loose its most valuable good - the motivation and the work of its volunteers.

• 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?

A "non-profit" organisation first "has to have the money" and then "spend it"! So it should not have any debts if possible and should just spend the money it has. Otherwise it will be endangered to become dependent on others ...

• 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?

Chapters, I think, play a very important one. Sooner or later the structure of the foundation will alter to that of other international federations (like FIFA or IOC) - but I think wiki is too young for that at the moment, and so the present construction of the foundation is opportune. The reason for this chance is a very simple one - in the future the chapters will grow more and more together and become more stable and more self-confident.

• 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?

At the moment, I don't see any need for a change, do You?