I vote in these elections and count Dr. James Heilman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Heilman) as a friend.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
It is not true that "Over half of the board is elected by the community of editors".
The WMF board is composed of ten members:
Four who are appointed by the board itself;
Three who are selected by the community encompassed by all the different Wikimedia projects
Two who are selected by the local chapters and thematic organizations
One emeritus for the foundation's founder, Jimmy Wales.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Board_of_...
That there are rules, eh I mean guidelines, is somewhat of a joke without means to enforce them. Disagreements across the void are more often than not resolved by ignoring the lower ranking editor. The concept of consensus[sic] is truly a joke with no clear path forwards. Money doesn't solve anything apparently.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=21700802 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...
Re: "In the case of insolvency I don't think the board will have much choice"; this is a key point to understanding my essay. Imagine someone winning a huge lawsuit and the WMF not being able to pay. Or imagine a really bad scandal (something like The New York Times publishing conclusive proof that the WMF is a front for ISIS) and donations drop through the floor, followed by the WMF continuing to increase spending until they run out of funds. None of these doomsday scenarios are likely, but they are not impossible either.