Angela wrote: Yes. There are a whole lot of pending issues at the moment regarding the Foundation website. Such as possibly you asking to be added as press contact (I also suddenly wonder if there was not also something left to update about Nicholas Moreau that I might have forgotten on the way). Also, Delphine asked to be made sysop on it. And finally, there are *many* pending requests to simply have an account on it (Li Sung and others I think). I usually try to fix these issues every 2-3 weeks, but it may be that with holidays and the stewards elections... errr... I might have left time go without realising :-) Sorry. Anthere PS : just a note. As for contact people, it is getting a bit messy, because I think we have a complete page of them on the internal wiki (so, none visible to the press), a shorter list on the foundation wiki (so, visible), other lists on local projects and maybe even some lists on meta. And the *one* day I needed the contact with the swiss... I had to go hunt on irc channels to find it... There is work to do :-)

Although the communications committee will primarily use meta and the foundation wiki for its activities, there are three areas that need to remain confidential: 1) copies of old press reports since these would be copyright violations if you just put them on a public wiki (linking isn't an option for sites that don't keep open and/or permanent archives of their news nor for press that only appeared in hard copy) 2) personal contact details on the press distribution lists 3) press releases that we really can't release ahead of time (like partnerships and other deals) Unless we want to open up the internal wiki to every committee member (potentially hundreds of people when you consider every sub-committee that will be formed), having separate wikis for the few committees that need it seems the only sensible solution. I had not assumed that anyone who became a committee member would automatically get access to the internal wiki. Remember that only the initial committee members are approved by the Board. Any future additions (and the press committee for one intends to expand a lot over the coming weeks) will presumably not be going through board votes. Angela.

Those are not good enough reasons to balkanize this. As I previously stated, the communications committee needs to have input from other parts of the organization, not to mention keeping everybody on the organizational level informed of what is going on press/PR wise. If this is done for every committee, then that will not encourage the type of communication and cross fertilization we need to function. In short, balkanization is a horrible idea and will only tend to fragment the foundation by encouraging people to over-specialize and not consider what the other parts of the organization are doing. Let's also not confuse committee members from volunteers; each committee should have a limited number of vetted members who would have access to the Internal list and wiki, but could have a virtually unlimited number of volunteers who would only have access to the public lists and wikis. That is the type of balance we should have. -- mav --- Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: And when they become official members of a committee, then they will have an official role in the organization. They will be trusted with at least one part of the organization. Thus they should have to place where internal matters are worked on; internal wiki. Sounds like it will be possible to make incidental viewing of things they don't need to view possible (yet hackable for some time ; but if they are trusted already, then we should be able to trust that they won't try to hack into things they shouldn't be seeing). Finance, for example, will be working on draft financial reports. We need a place to put those that are not public until after the board (or the committee itself if so designated by the board) approves them for publication. If we had those on a FinanceWiki, then nobody else in the organization will be aware of them and none of them will be able to comment on them or add their input. We NEED that kind of back and forth, especially for things like budgeting. If, however, only a small part of finance committee has access to InternalWiki and we have the draft documents there, then the other members of the committee might as well not be on the committee at all since they don't have access to the place where the work is being done. But my biggest point is this; If we can't trust members of the finance committee with keeping sensitive non-financial matters confidential, then how the hell can we trust them to keep sensitive financial matters confidential? Trust is trust. We either trust them or we don't. 'Some people might be unhappy' is not a valid reason. If that were valid, then the fact that I'm unhappy about balkanization should carry just as much weight. -- mav __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote: Not sure that fundraising is the best example since almost everything it does, even the draft stuff, will be on meta. Thus hardly anybody involved in that subcommittee would not need access to either the internal list or wiki. I'm not sure a distinction between a core committee and other committee members makes much sense in practice. Accounting and budgeting, for example, will be subcommittees to the finance committee. All members of those two subcommittees will need access to InternalWiki since that is where draft reports and budgets will be created. Yet almost everybody in the fundraising subcommittee need only have access to meta. Access to the internal wiki and list would be controlled by the board. Being a member of any committee or subcommittee would not automatically give them access to those things. That can be needs based. But a prerequisite to be considered for having that access should be committee membership, an affirmative super-majority vote by the committee for each candidate, and then ratification by the board. -- mav __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Anthere schrieb: I know. Most other major languages have press teams who do pretty good work. English had no formal team yet while it needs it most. Also, most of the international press work has to be done in english. Third, if I invited all the non-english people who'd merit it, we would end up with a really large committee and have still not all languages represented equally. I think for the sake of efficiency it's better to start small. These were my reasons for focussing on having people from english speaking countries on the committee. This shouldn't mean that others are excluded. One first task of the communication committee will be to invite all members of the local press teams to the subcommittee press where probably most actions take place. By having this subcommittee, we can integrate all languages equally. So far my concept for the committee. If you favour a different approach, I'm open for suggestions. greetings, elian