WMF project ownership

Florence Devouard today on foundation-l made the following comment: "WMF do not own the projects any more than other organizations, and the existence of most projects is actually older than the existence of the Foundation. I'll add that in people's mind, it could tend to give more weight to the idea that WMF is the one in charge (increase legal exposure)."

I don't see the WMF doing very much to promote project self-governance, though. Obviously the projects are highly dependent on the WMF - they require the servers and bandwidth and domain name if nothing else (without the domain name the project's value would be decimated or worse). WMF employees have root access to these servers and are needed to approve any major technical features. And obviously these provisions come with certain requirements - [[Resolution:Licensing policy]] being a prime example, but most of these requirements aren't written and clear. At the very least, some formal documentation as to what choices projects have and what is mandatory would be useful. Can the English Wikipedia overthrow the ArbCom and still get to keep its domain name? Do ArbCom rulings "in fact hold greater authority than that of mobs, democratic or otherwise"? What is the formal role of Jimmy Wales? Would the WMF deal with a democratic body which isn't approved by him? What type of approval would a self-formed governance committee need for the WMF to grant it permission to act as a liason between a project community and the WMF, so that for example Brion need only ask this committee if there is consensus for a change? Where can we go to get answers to these questions?

Steve Smith's interview in NotTheWikipediaWeekly Episode 18 comes to mind. Here's my transcript in relevant part:

"The other thing of course that I really want to get into is giving the larger projects especially the tools by which they can continue to govern themselves. I think self-governance, certainly of the English language Wikipedia, has broken down and I don't think it's going to be fixed until [sic] some intervention by the board.
[....]
I, like almost everybody else, would like to see the board of trustees stay away from making direct policy decisions at the community level (there's the 230 [inaudible] other issues there) but what I do support doing is stepping in with a governance model - saying OK, we're going to come in and impose this body that has some authority on you - you have the authority to elect this body, to change its scope, to change its mandate, and all the rest of it, but here at least is a tool by which you can govern your own community, rather than being reliant on whatever consensus might happen to mean on any given day and any given debate." (transcript is dual licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported; please feel free to correct any mistakes and please point me to a copy of any fixes you make).

Would Mike Godwin sign off on such a plan? If not, is there something maybe a little less involved that the WMF can do to help? I don't see much happening without the WMF helping, at least by clarifying the ground-rules as to how a self-governance model would look. Although, maybe the ArbCom is finally willing to take up the task - some recent rulings and proposed rulings seem to imply it is finally willing to expand its role and/or at least to help form a body to fill in the gaps.