On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/5 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
Cary  suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP community as a whole. I accepted membership in a committee chosen by ArbCom, under the assumption it would be generally supported. Having found out my assumption was wrong, I can't say I'd want to repeat the embarrassing experience.
I urge those--like myself-- considering applying to do as I intend to do, which is to wait till the community has given its support.
The WMF has always had the power to do stuff like this, ArbCom hasn't and doesn't. I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group unless people don't like what they come up with.
"I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group unless people don't like what they come up with."
I'm not being silly here, but couldn't that good-faith statement you just made apply to *any* group?
And just out of interest, if the WMF had proposed the group that DGG (David) is referring to (the ACPD), instead of ArbCom, what would the reaction have been then?
You *do* know that the WMF has proposed similar groups recently and in the past?
The recent one:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
I'm aware that there are major differences between the WMF's strategy wiki and the advisory council (ACPD) that was convened on en-Wikipedia (the main similarity being that they both had the laudable long-term aim of improving the encyclopedia, the main differences being the structure), but what struck me most was the differences in the reception both got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Developme...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council...
As I've said there, what I hope to see one day is a variety of groups, using different mediums, composed of different people, operating to different timescales, all producing good ideas that can be proposed for community approval and implemented as needed. Long-term strategy planning. I don't care HOW such groups start - it is the RESULTS that matter.
Ultimately, the best such approaches will grow and flourish, while those that don't, will naturally wither and go inactive. The key is to have diversity to ensure that such groups are not restricted to any one model or system.
What I don't want to see is the sort of reaction-without-reasoned-discussion, and rapid spread of misunderstandings (and if people repeat those misunderstandings here, I will be very happy to correct them), that happened when the ACPD was convened. That reaction (best seen at the RfC I linked above), and the despair that reaction evoked in some people, is best summed up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Developme...
The earlier group that the WMF came up with was this one, I think:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_Projects_Committee
There might be others, as I don't think this is the one Marc (Riddell) was referring to.
Oh, and I should finish this post with a plea to everyone to go back and read the original e-mail by Cary and to write to him if you are interested in the BLP taskforce that he is putting together. Please don't let any of the side-threads about these meta issues detract from that.
Carcharoth