On 2016-01-13 16:32, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Milos Rancic
<millosh(a)gmail.com
wrote:
I think it is a good idea to have a sort
of community council. To give
credit, Guy Kawasaki just recently proposed something along these lines
in
internal discussions. My first take is that it would be good to have
some
representation and governance of our movement, not just WMF. It would
make
everyone's lives easier, too - it would be easier to consult, seek
advise,
etc.
I've been also thinking about revitalizing our Advisory Board - the way
I
would like to see it would be dividing it into (a) community (b) tech
and
(c) academic subgroups, available for immediate consulting and
feedback.
This definitely does not collide with the idea of a community council
in
the form that you're proposing, I think. It is worth further
discussion.
Should it be continued on meta?
dj
Hi Dariusz,
there have been several discussions over the years, and those which I
remember (the first one was Lodewijk's proposal in 2008? 2009?) were
either rejected/not endorsed by the board, or got stalled on meta with
no consensus. My impression is therefore that some sort of a preparatory
work is needed to avoid these two traps. Ideally, there would be a
drafting group with a broad representation (possibly the members of the
group will be prohibited to sit in the first edition of the elected
body), and the Board will preliminary express an interest (so that the
group knows the chances are not zero). Of course we can just agree on
electing the representative body witout actually asking the Board, but I
am not sure this would be the right way of doing it.
Cheers
Yaroslav