This is an example of why I find the questions "Who voted for it?" and "Who
voted against it?" immensely troubling. In a true democratic system, the
secret ballot allows people to vote their conscience, rather than voting for
popularity, material reward, fear of censure, and whatnot.
A commitment to openness should not be misused so cynically.
Danny
In a message dated 6/4/2006 10:30:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
troyhunter0(a)lycos.com writes:
Anthere wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter <troyhunter0(a)lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
> >
> >
> > With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee
> > a minimal level of openness in the committees:
> > - Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted
> > against it?
> > - Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
> >
> > Erik
>
>
> Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.
This is a violation of Jimmy's promise to never vote against Anthere and
Angela except on matters of grave importance. The September 2004 Wikimedia
Quarto states:
"To date, Tim and Michael have played a minimal part in board discussion and
decisions, and there is no plan to change this. In order to ensure that the
community voice is real, Jimbo has pledged, as a matter of convention, never
to vote against Angela and Anthere, unless he feels that it is an issue of an
absolutely fundamental change of direction for the project -- which is not
likely to happen, since Angela, Anthere and Jimbo share the essential values
of the community and the project. So as a practical matter, power is in the
hands of the two democratically elected board members on most issues, and Jimbo
defers to that."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/1
Restated in February 2005:
"Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have
a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one
direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
and Michael vote. The only exception I would make to this is if they
wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way --
but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they
do."
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/20359
and in April 2005:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/2922
Jimmy wrote:
> The first resolution was something that we discussed at the
> board level but never quite came to a firm conclusion. I think that's
> one which we will revisit at some point in the future. The general idea
> was to make sure that committees not engage in excessive secrecy, which
> is a good idea, but at the same time, we did not want to encumber them
> with a lot of paranoia that they have to announce evertything all the
> time. Different board members had different perspectives on how to get
> those central points across.
Yes, different board members had different perspectives. That's to be
expected, they come from different backgrounds. Some of them represent the
community, some do not. But the elected members were not arguing for an "absolutely
fundamental change of direction", were they?
--
_______________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow
Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
RC=lycos10
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Erik Zachte wrote:
>
>>* Increasingly decison are taken by the board without too much prior
>>discussion in the open, at least on places where I would expect it, like on
>>this mailing list.
>
>
> I don't think so. I don't know of any examples. But if there are some
> things that you would like to bring up as specifics, I would love to
> consider them.
What about the committee resolutions, such as the following?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conducthttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Special_projectshttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Communications_committee
> In particular, the "increasingly" perception is the one I want to
> combat, by trying to make it more clear how things are done, and how
> things have transitioned and continue to transition to having a lot more
> people involved.
I've heard that these days, most things are discussed and decided on a secret mailing list long before they become public. Is that true?
>>(#) I might add 'and created and/or sanctioned by the board'. The board
>>reigns supremely. This does not make the board evil in any way, or its
>>members less respectable, it does not discredit the committees or their
>>members, far from it, all names of committee members that I recognize are of
>>highly valued community members (I'm not even against any of the committees
>>or their missions, heck I'm going to apply for a committee on invitation and
>>of course undergo normal co-optation procedure) it is simply a control
>>monopoly that I would like to see amended, to strenghten Wikimedia as an
>>organisation.
>
>
> In what way would you amend it? Keep in mind that we are an actual
> organization in the real world, and there are real legal
> responsibilities, very serious ones, that have to be met by the
> organization, and board members have a very heavy burden to be sure that
> these responsibilities are met. It would not be legal, for example, for
> the board to completely give up decision making authority over a lot of
> different things... but what we can do is involve more people (instead
> of me doing everything, which was the very old way, and then the board
> doing everything, which was the old way, to now an *increasingly*
> community oriented approach of committees and chapters).
You mean "community-oriented" as in oriented towards those people selected by Delphine and Danny to be on the committees? Sounds more like cabal-oriented to me.
>>I'm not sure I would favour to vote on everything, elections can be
>>manipulated. Perhaps the tried system of discussing major choices until a
>>consensus is reached would still work, this list is not flooded by hundreds
>>of trolls, there is still a limited community interested in these issues.
>
>
> I think we try really hard to do this, whenever possible. I am unaware
> of any major changes of direction which were not openly discussed until
> something approaching consensus is reached. Of course, this list does
> have some trolls, but almost everyone contributing here has a strong
> voice in the future course of the foundation in every way.
Answers.com deal? Committee selection process? Hey, what about the original bylaws of the Foundation, were they discussed until consensus was reached?
[...]
>>* The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
>>paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down
>>management.
>
>
> Why do you suppose that an outsider would be chosen for this?
Do you have any candidates in mind at the moment? How many edits do each of them have?
troy
--
_______________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
<!-- DIV {margin:0px;}-->Mathias Schindler a écrit :
>To a certain extend:
>* European Parliament (Article 162 GO)
>* German Bundestag (§49 GO)
>* Israeli Knesset
That's for very special cases. Secret ballot is definitivly not the usual voting method, even is these parliaments, so stop trolling.
Traroth
Is there any formal, consistent method to consolidate, resolve and end any
particular discussion thread?
I am unable to see: 1) how we know how many people are participating in a
discussion; 2) when they've all had their say; 3) at what point a moderator
(and I'm assuming that this must be a board member at this point) is able to
say: this was the problem, these were the suggestions, this is the
resolution and this is how it will be implemented.
Without this every discussion is going to end leaving some people feeling
they didn't get to say their piece.
I propose the following:
1) Create a new, dedicated tool for the proposition and discussion of ideas
and projects (everything is all jumbled up in this list)
2) Create a list of moderators who will be randomly assigned in strict
rotation to any approved new thread (like a judge)
3) Anyone can propose a new major discussion
4) Every proposal must receive two votes of agreement from accredited
members (how accredited, up to you)
5) A discussion has a week in which to resolve itself
6) Submissions must further the discussion and offer ideas for refining the
problem, solution, or implementation
7) The moderator has the task of ensuring the discussion remains on track
8) At the end of the discussion the moderator summarises the problem, the
suggested solutions and suggests a resolution - this is posted to this
discussion forum
9) If the moderator feels that no resolution has taken place then the
discussion is closed and the topic must be re-proposed
10) The proposal and solution are now up for voting
11) Voting takes place (and you'll need some form of voters roll so that you
know how many people are voting) within a strict time-frame
Complete discussion and voting result gets archived for purview. Clearly
this system can only be used where you have two weeks to resolve a problem.
Critical problems are still going to have to be assigned and solved
unilaterally.
This proposal, which is not comprehensive (who gets the task of
implementation?) can just as easily be subjected to the review process I
describe. That way we end these "I-said-You-said-Who-said-Why-said"
discussions.
Austin Hair wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter <troyhunter0(a)lycos.com> wrote:
> > Anthere wrote:
> > > Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.
> >
> > This is a violation of Jimmy's promise to never vote against
> > Anthere and Angela except on matters of grave importance. The
> > September 2004 Wikimedia Quarto states:
> >
> > "To date, Tim and Michael have played a minimal part in board
> > discussion and decisions, and there is no plan to change this. In
> > order to ensure that the community voice is real, Jimbo has
> > pledged, as a matter of convention, never to vote against Angela
> > and Anthere, unless he feels that it is an issue of an absolutely
> > fundamental change of direction for the project -- which is not
> > likely to happen, since Angela, Anthere and Jimbo share the
> > essential values of the community and the project. So as a
> > practical matter, power is in the hands of the two democratically
> > elected board members on most issues, and Jimbo defers to that."
>
> I don't really see the argument, here. Abstention from a vote in
> favor of others is the usual manner of "deferring" in any
> pseudo-democratic system, and certainly doesn't qualify as "voting
> against" anyone.
There was indeed some ambiguity in the phrasing of the statement in the Wikimedia Quarto, as to whether abstention is a loophole. However the second statement I quoted, which was directly from Jimbo, had no such ambiguity, to my reading. I'll quote it again since you've snipped it.
"Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have
a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one
direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
and Michael vote. The only exception I would make to this is if they
wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way --
but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they
do."
Abstention is clearly not a way to make it "so that it does not matter how Tim and Michael vote". Jimbo promises to defer to Angela and Anthere's judgement, not to the judgement of all 4 remaining Board members. An abstention does the latter, not the former.
Are you saying that while "deferring to the judgement of Angela and Anthere", the three unelected Board members nevertheless reserve the right to veto any of their proposals? In what way is that deferring?
--
_______________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Danny wrote:
> This is an example of why I find the questions "Who voted for it?" and "Who
> voted against it?" immensely troubling. In a true democratic system, the
> secret ballot allows people to vote their conscience, rather than voting for
> popularity, material reward, fear of censure, and whatnot.
Firstly, a true democratic system delegates authority to elected representatives of the people. That is not the case here, authority is delegated to a Board, the majority of which is unelected. Two out of five members have very little claim to a mandate. What right do they have to follow their conscience?
Secondly, in a true democratic system, the participation of the people is not limited to a periodic vote. Ongoing oversight from a well-educated, well-informed public is necessary, to prevent an abuse of power. This allows the people to ensure that their elected representatives do indeed serve their interests. It allows them to make an informed choice at the next election, and to organise opposition.
For these reasons, in the World's major democracies, representatives do not have a secret vote. Representatives must be held accountable. They must be held to their promises.
> A commitment to openness should not be misused so cynically.
What commitment? The resolution we're talking about was debated 6 weeks ago. Why wasn't it announced or publically debated back then? Why didn't we know who voted in favour and against?
--
_______________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
We get plenty of matching gift requests. In some instances we meet the
criteria for matching, in other instances we don't. In any event, eachrequest is
accompanied by a form, whgich we must fill out. I do that quite regularly--I
even have a separate folder for matching gift requests. There is a place to put
the EIN on the form. It is usually sent with a copy of our 501 (c) 3
letter. The fact that it is not posted prominently does not, to the best of my
knowledge, hinder donations and matching gifts in any way whatsoever.
Danny
In a message dated 6/4/2006 9:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Anthere9(a)yahoo.com writes:
Okay.
Yes, we received such propositions from employees (donations to a
charity from their paychecks). afaik, that number is not published. That
might be a choice.
An alternative is that such programs must be made available by the
employer himself, who can contact us beforehand (through OTRS...) and
make the number available for the employees.
Michael ? opinion ?
After much pondering I decided not to press my point any further for now.
All I had to say about trust versus control has been said. Some parts of the
argument were supported by other contributors or even acknowledged by
members of the board, other parts did not quite come across. We will have to
see how things develop.
I want to state more firmly what I already hinted to in my previous post:
that I mistook Antheres words and was plainly wrong about their meaning.
Anthere, your conduct was proof enough, but thanks for your explanation.
Just one more thing: I would like to emphasize that for me Wikimedia is not
only about our goals but also very much about how we reach them. The way in
which we collaborate is what makes us special. The spirit of openess,
freedom of speech, equality and tolerance, which transcends national,
cultural, religious and political boundaries and which already made us move
mountains, is our message to the world. Discussing the implications of
organisational choices seems to me therefore highly relevant and legitimate.
After some doubt in the middle of the argument I now realize again that we
all agree on that part. Thank you for that.
Erik Zachte
Arne Klempert wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter <troyhunter0(a)lycos.com> wrote:
> > > Why do you suppose that an outsider would be chosen for this?
> >
> > Do you have any candidates in mind at the moment? How
> > many edits do each of them have?
>
> Oh yeah, let's adopt the Requests for Adminship process for chosing
> Wikimedia Foundation's employees and contractors. Or let's just count
> the edits, then probably a bot will become CEO. And thanks to Free
> Software anyone can write his own CEO. Great idea! ;)
No, I certainly wouldn't suggest using such criteria to select a CEO. But Jimmy says that the CEO will not be an outsider, so I would like to know what the definition of an outsider is. If a candidate had less than, say, half a dozen edits, we might be forgiven for thinking of them as an outsider. Is this the case?
--
_______________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Mav wrote:
quote
"...But, IMO, we should seriously consider a better place for the Wikimedia
main office before hiring lots of people. St Pete is fine as a tourist
destination and maybe even as a satellite office of the foundation given
that two board members and Danny live there, but the host city of the main
office of an international organization? Sorry, but no.
Washington D.C. or NYC are places where almost every nation of world sends
their ambassadors and where a multitude of other international
organizations, which we really should be working closely with, are based.
Talent pool is another consideration; many more people with the relevant
experience we need already live in those cities."
---
As on several earlier occasions I disagree with Mav on how Wikimedia money
would be best spent. Washington D.C. or NYC are very expensive cities.
Besides, those are cities with heavily political connotations. Of course
there is no such thing as a political neutral location. Maybe St Petersburg
USA comes close, not sure ;)
We might show the world that we still do things differently, not per se, but
when there is a good reason for it. We might do something substantial for
the underdeveloped world by placing our head office in e.g. Africa or India.
Wikimedia involvement in many underdeveloped countries is still largely
lagging behind. We might reach out and make a powerful gesture of good faith
in the potential of those parts of the world.
To name just one example: Nairobi would be a capable host city. Even the UN
has a head office there. Running an office in Africa or India would be much
cheaper. In a web-connected world travel times and costs are no longer very
strong arguments against this.
Erik Zachte