Agreed from my side, too. Here are my suggestions.
Re participation expectations: I expect LangCom members to read messages in a timely fashion (as we have a 7-day deadline on decisions, that would mean at least twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (These times could be shortened if we have a consensus on shortening them - I wouldn't mind.)
Re committee size: That's a bit more difficult as we strive to have good potential contacts covering the entire world (e.g., I'm a member mainly for African languages but also for my contacts in SIL). Possibly, we still have a few gaps in coverage (our membership is still a bit Euro-centric). Would a maximum of twelve members be sufficient? In any case, it would mean to be strategic about membership, and possibly recruit new members for a specific field (as Jon Harald did in my case back in 2011).
Just my 2p's worth for starters. Oliver
On 08-Feb-17 02:09, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am not a member of LangCom (just a volunteer list-admin), so I will not offer an opinion on Jan's request to join.
However, I *will* offer an opinion about the committee's governance: the current structure still bears the signs of the committee's genesis, out of ad-hoc need, in a very different time for the movement. Today, it behooves this committee, like all WMF committees (and others across the movement), to adopt some measures of good governance to ensure it remains fit-to-purpose and active.
The first such measure that comes to mind is agreeing upon participation expectations (which should of course be appropriate for this particular committee's tasks and the understandable delays they often carry, such as waiting on external experts, etc.), and, after due notice, eventually removing members who do not meet those expectations. This is a relatively easy way to address the "membership for life" issue without setting actual (renewable) membership terms.
Another measure would be agreeing upon some desired size (or range) for committee membership, and then upon some process and criteria for soliciting and accepting new members.
I am bringing this up as advice in my personal capacity as observer of this committee, resting though it does on much observation and work with other Wikimedia committees. My advice does not carry any coercive force, of course; I just invite the committee to consider improving its governance along these or similar lines.
Agreed. I would put on hold any new membership requests before the solution of the issues Asaf listed.
I would also say that we should solve these issues as soon as possible; i.e. to put this thread as priority for our present work.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom