Responding a.o. to Jimmy's
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-June/007389.html
Jimmy, I know you value the community with whole your heart. But I cannot
follow in your analysis of how things are going: you say the community is
more and more in control, after all board members and other staff are part
of the community, so essentially the community is 100% in control. But my
concern centers around:
* Increasingly decison are taken by the board without too much prior
discussion in the open, at least on places where I would expect it, like on
this mailing list. I just question this when major foundation issues are
concerned. I'm not talking daily affairs, that is what we have
representatives for, but large decisions that define how Wikimedia is
organised and how it interacts with the rest of the world. From the initial
bylaws, to their most recent pending incarnation, from the jurisdiction of
the board, to the mission of the committees and their leading figures, to
the appointment and tasks of a non-CEO.
Jimmy: "And, it should be strongly pointed out: the committee system is a
*community* system, driven by volunteers, staffed by volunteers (#), and the
committees and the chapters make up the heart and soul of Wikimedia."
(#) I might add 'and created and/or sanctioned by the board'. The board
reigns supremely. This does not make the board evil in any way, or its
members less respectable, it does not discredit the committees or their
members, far from it, all names of committee members that I recognize are of
highly valued community members (I'm not even against any of the committees
or their missions, heck I'm going to apply for a committee on invitation and
of course undergo normal co-optation procedure) it is simply a control
monopoly that I would like to see amended, to strenghten Wikimedia as an
organisation.
I'm not sure I would favour to vote on everything, elections can be
manipulated. Perhaps the tried system of discussing major choices until a
consensus is reached would still work, this list is not flooded by hundreds
of trolls, there is still a limited community interested in these issues.
Also on major issues I'd rather sacrifice speed than quality of decision
making, again on major issues only, and of course judicial emergencies taken
aside. Even better I welcomed your idea for a wikicouncil, but as policy
maker not as advisor, thus approaching the ideal of a Trias Politica, but
noone seems to warm to that idea.
* Several board members recently stated their weariness about discussing
things with the larger community (for quotes eee
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-May/007321.html ),
although I have to say Anthere still does speak up a lot on this list, so
maybe I make too much out of her remarks. Everyone is entitled to an
occasional slip of the tongue.
* Board expansion is not an issue you say, it just will happen. But there
has been talk, albeit not by you, of appointing board members instead of
holding an election. If that would ever happen, how could anyone not see
that the board would be heading towards splendid isolation?
* The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down
management. Why should an appointed individual, let alone a possible
outsider, lead this debate, or manage it in any way? Incidentally, I would
be less concerned if the final CEO would only supervise administrative
tasks, like paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions, but then I
find the term CEO odd, I call that an office manager.
All of this gives me the feeling the board knows best what is good for the
community, and is more and more leaning towards [p|m]aternalism, to put it
mildly, more than it used to in its first year of existence. The number of
people involved in the decision making structure is growing, with all those
committees and chapters, yet the central role of the board and its do's and
don'ts is what really matters.
All in all I see the dicussion we now have on this mailing list as a very
good thing. The debate is somewhat heated at times, with an occasional
sneering remark, but I'd rather see this debate go on for a while with all
distraction and confusion that it brings, if it strenghtens fundaments of
Wikimedia as an organisation.
Erik Zachte