osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general to formulate much of an argument for or against. I will say I am against the Wikicouncil as described on Meta. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil It would be far too large to be effective. I can't see how a group of more than 20 people max could be useful in an advisory role. And I have no idea what "supervision of the projects" actually entails. Any duties I can think of that could be considered supervision need a group no larger than 13.
I don't mean to imply oscar's ideas have no merit. We certainly need to understand where some boundaries are between different roles. I am not sure why strict seperation is so neccessary. And I guess I need oscar to define what he means by
*executive and project-related responsibilities
*supervise the projects
Before I can really comment, although I can say my current impression is negative.
Birgitte SB
--- Traroth traroth@yahoo.fr wrote:
I think Oscar's idea is really great, because it mixes representativity (an elected board) and efficiency (a designated CEO and a perennial administrative staff). The best proposal I have heard. I would like people against his proposition express their arguments.
Traroth
----- Message d'origine ---- De : oscar oscar.wiki@gmail.com À : Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Envoyé le : Samedi, 10 Juin 2006, 2h44mn 15s Objet : [Foundation-l] on (re)organizing wikimedia
hi all,
i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization. i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.
in my opinion:
- the only way this organization, its projects and
mission, its vitality and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision. 2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is mandatory. 3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at all. 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts, but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the who-does-what, which is not of my concern now. also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
oscar _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com