--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Although there has already been a massive exchange in the last 12 hours, I'm going to respond to the initial question. One problem is first mover (or first discusser) bias, and the entire conversation has gone down one way, when I think it's best to start with a fresh look.
What Damian mentioned about Wikicouncil as "representative democracy" is closest to what many Wikiretreaters in Frankfurt expressed - that a body of experienced, learned, informed, engaged and knowledgeable Wikimedians from different projects could form a body with real powers to decide on community matters and even for the purpose of being a body of electors for determinng the election of board members.
Wikicouncil folks would be responsible for things that that either we (inappropriately) appeal to the "board of trustees" to do now, or ask developers to do on the fly. It's not fair to ask Brion or Tim to be decisionmaker for community decisions from random parts of the Wikimedia universe, and it's traditionally beyond the scope of a "Board of Trustees" to be managing down to the approve/deny level of individual projects on a week to week basis. That's where a Wikicouncil would come in.
As for the argument that Wikicouncil would not be a "direct democracy," I mentioned this to Erik in Frankfurt, but I believe there is a less compelling argument for every Wikimedian having equal vote as any other Wikimedian for some value of "n" edits and "m" months of membership. The idea of every community member getting equal say as in a "true democracy" is not compelling since there is no concept of "natural citizenship" in Wikipedia - people join by choice, they self-identify for tasks, and they elevate. It is different than a citizen of a country or territory. As Damian noted, many folks don't know, nor do they care, for issues related to higher level governance or WMF board matters. They're there to write an encyclopedia, create a Wikiversity course, contribute to Commons, etc. A Wikicouncil would have the expertise of folks who have put in the time, passion, energy and thought into working with the WMF community matters, while the board would oversee the big picture matters. I believe that the Wikicouncil would clarify and solve many of the problems we have now with the scope of board and executive level matters.
In this sense, I think the idea of a Wikicouncil is quite familiar - I'd imagine a Wikicouncil would be made up most of folks you will find right now in Wikiproject leadership, chapter activities, committee involvement, and the like. It would be a formalization of what takes place already, but where there is currently no procedure or authority to act on group consensus.
That is a brief summary of what hopes I saw people had in the idea for a Wikicouncil. I cannot speak for all the folks, so I invite other folks to chime in on this.
-Andrew
I have not said anything because I am open to this idea being developed in previously undiscussed ways. But the above statments I do not understand. How is this in any way similar to the ways things take place already? It strikes me as anything but familiar.
I am willing to withold critiscism as people brainstorm, but I find the above remarks quite disturbing. It is a few of the worst parts of old ideas about the wikicouncil packaged as simply a formalization of current process. I am sorry these ideas are in no way a representation of the way current process works.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link
Compare mortgage rates for today. Get up to 5 free quotes. Www2.nextag.com