Anthere wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter
<troyhunter0(a)lycos.com> wrote:
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.
This is a violation of Jimmy's promise to never vote against Anthere and Angela
except on matters of grave importance. The September 2004 Wikimedia Quarto states:
"To date, Tim and Michael have played a minimal part in board discussion and
decisions, and there is no plan to change this. In order to ensure that the community
voice is real, Jimbo has pledged, as a matter of convention, never to vote against Angela
and Anthere, unless he feels that it is an issue of an absolutely fundamental change of
direction for the project -- which is not likely to happen, since Angela, Anthere and
Jimbo share the essential values of the community and the project. So as a practical
matter, power is in the hands of the two democratically elected board members on most
issues, and Jimbo defers to that."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/1
Restated in February 2005:
"Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have
a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one
direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
and Michael vote. The only exception I would make to this is if they
wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way --
but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they
do."
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/20359
and in April 2005:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/2922
Jimmy wrote:
The first resolution was something that we
discussed at the
board level but never quite came to a firm conclusion. I think that's
one which we will revisit at some point in the future. The general idea
was to make sure that committees not engage in excessive secrecy, which
is a good idea, but at the same time, we did not want to encumber them
with a lot of paranoia that they have to announce evertything all the
time. Different board members had different perspectives on how to get
those central points across.
Yes, different board members had different perspectives. That's to be expected, they
come from different backgrounds. Some of them represent the community, some do not. But
the elected members were not arguing for an "absolutely fundamental change of
direction", were they?
I did not see any problem whatsoever in Jimbo abstaining himself in this
vote.
I also realised afterwards that both Tim and Michael comments absolutely
made sense and that such a resolution could not really fit, because each
committee must organise itself and create its own rules. I support the
underlying concepts behind the resolution, but also recognise that the
resolution in itself was making all this a bit too much "one shoe fits all".
Angela and I made a mistake here. We should have allowed more time for
discussion beforehand. We might have all come to a phrasing that would
have been acceptable to all of us.
Note that another version of this resolution might be proposed again in
the future. If there is not till now, it may be because we finally did
not see the need for it ? Or because we thought these points could be
achieved differently ? Or because we did not have the time and energy ?
One point should be stressed. It is important that resolutions are
discussed and re-discussed, so that we try to have it in the voting
stage in the most satisfactory way for most of us. We sometimes fail to
do that, either because a decision might appear urgent, or because we
think that a resolution at some point is fine for all of us whilst it is
not. We are not perfect ;-)
ant
PS : generally, I think all committees will grow in avoiding the trap of
excessive and unreasonable secrecy.