Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter troyhunter0@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.
A little bit of explanation may help understand.
Cycle of life of a resolution.
When a resolution is started, it is in the "draft stage". All members may comment it on the talk page and modifications are made accordingly to the comments. Very few resolutions failed overall, because we usually modify resolutions until we know most of us will be happy with. A couple of time though, we did not give enough time to the draft stage. This is typically the case of this specific resolution.
After a while, the resolution is put in the "motion to vote" stage. Two board members must approve the motion.
Once two members have approved the "motion to vote" stage, the resolution goes to the vote stage.
During the vote stage, the resolution must not be modified (at least, this was how things worked first. Now, we accept minor modifications). We should all vote, but if three board members approve (majority), the resolution is passed.
--------
The resolution committee conduct was proposed by Angela. If I remember well, we both motionned it to vote very quickly (the same day). Too quickly... This was a mistake. Michael then opposed it and explained why on the talk page. Seeing there was disagreement, Jimbo abstained. Tim later opposed as well and gave his arguments.
The arguments given by Tim and Michael and which support their opposition make sense.
The resolution was
The Foundation grants authority to committees to fulfil certain tasks. In return, the Board asks that the committees report back on their activities, and have open and transparent processes wherever possible. It is hereby resolved that: 1 Every committee shall submit a report to the Board monthly. 2 Committee members conduct their activities publicly wherever possible, using internal means of communication only when confidentiality is required. 3 Committee membership shall be an open and transparent process, with all committee members being informed of changes to membership, and outsiders understanding how they may join the committee.
The arguments raised were
* It is always possibly to conduct activities publicly. Committees should conduct themselves in the best interest of the Foundation, whatever that may be. * When is confidentiality required (as opposed to desireable)? * Point three doesn't specify who will inform committee members; it is in the passive voice, and if taken literaly it says committee members violate the resolution by not being informed, which doesn't make a lot of sense. * this resolution seems to aim towards greater openness and transparency, which are desirable things, but like all desireable things there are costs and trade-offs involved. The resoultion does not seem informed of this problem of trade-offs. It says "using internal means of communication only when confidentiality is required" but without specify things like what are the criteria for determining if confidentiality is required, or, who makes this determination. * This resolution seems like an attempt to use broad, general rules to address a specific problem. Maybe its a good idea in this case but if we get in the habit of addressing procedural problems with Board resolutions, the result will likely be heavy-handed management by the Board, which I don't think would be desirable - for one thing it would not be very efficient.
I think all those arguments make sense. This resolution is too fluffy to be a good resolution. Point 1 is a very good point. Point 2 raises the issue of confidentiality (who defines what is confidential. what happens when there is a breach of confidentiality ?) Point 3 can not be a "rule", but only a guideline.
-------
- Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
None is in the drafting stage.