2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com:
It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately responsible for everything WMF does.
Yes, I am aware of that. What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.
Of course there are other possible solutions.
2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the "functionaries of high trust" you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected by us*.
If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community. Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling members with a power of veto.
The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or discussing the *merit* of such bans. The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal department and tollows from the projects' terms of use. This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that - indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided by the ToS.
With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts, with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be more helpful, but maybe I am wrong.
Cristian