On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers <
phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow <
wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>>> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) --
>>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect
>>> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for
>>> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create
>>> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really
>>> just a Foundation issue.
>>>
>> I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who
>> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could
>> authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in,
>> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not
>> really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than
>> strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and
>> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing
>> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably
>> people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like
>> this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we
>> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced
>> Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to
>> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction
>> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still
>> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity,
>> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on
>> structures needed to organize the board's own functions.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>
> Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the
> Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for
> direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where
> would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any
> particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and
> simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently
> lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where
> the interested community grants it authority by building the
> structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized.
>
> I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am
> wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for
> forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course
> we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but
> for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works
> on, it seems tricky.
>
> Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential
> glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise
> of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How
> about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other
> interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's
> panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned!
>
> -- phoebe
>
> p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be
> unstoppable. Powered by James^2.