I think it's the threat of organizational bloat, as well as the danger that the organizing might veer in the direction of excessive spending instead of focusing on the sustainability of it's mission long-term.
I'm not going to argue for whether or not it's happening in this case, but generally, it's far too easy for an organization to ramp up spending and then become unable to survive on the amount of income it used it have. As one example, it's far easier for people to scale up their own compensation than it is to scale down, especially at the top levels. So something else gets cut, that might have survived had the org not experienced an income surge.
There is also the danger of the actual culture of the organization changing that TFA brings up.
So I think it is very important that there is a conversation around this subject.
It's certainly the case that the community has less and less of a say. Decisions are increasingly made behind closed doors or by committees rather than on Wikipedia itself. Professional bureaucrats doing their thing.
I have to admit this is part of what makes this so galling. These people reap goodwill and money from the work of volunteers – using fundraising methods that have often been criticised as unethical by the latter – and then disenfranchise them on top of it.
Wikipedia actually existed before the Wikimedia Foundation.
I'm not going to argue for whether or not it's happening in this case, but generally, it's far too easy for an organization to ramp up spending and then become unable to survive on the amount of income it used it have. As one example, it's far easier for people to scale up their own compensation than it is to scale down, especially at the top levels. So something else gets cut, that might have survived had the org not experienced an income surge.
There is also the danger of the actual culture of the organization changing that TFA brings up.
So I think it is very important that there is a conversation around this subject.