I was on the group.
We did not even start the discussions.
The only thing we had was the resolution proposed by Lodewijk. It was
published, both here and on meta. I am sure you read it.
The expectation was we could be a group researching a possibility to
establish the VC, and, in case we would conclude the VC should be
established, come up with some recommendations how it could function and
draft some initial policy on VC.
Of course we would be prepared to present the results of the research in
public. Even more, there have been suggestions on this list (not supported
by me) that we debate actually in public.
The board has made it explicit it is not interested in this research.
So far, this has been the end of the story.
Cheers
Yaroslav
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
All the Board had to do is endorse the
Provisional Council, which was in
essence a working group.
My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill
them.
I would infact be curious to know if that was really the case.
While I agree with Lodewijk that it would be useful for
individual board members to be open about thier individual
views on the matter, equally I have to ask Lodewijk, EC and
company, if they would be prepared to present to the public
what the proposal they offered to the board (and was not
acted upon directly by them) was like?
So far we have had an interpretation by Jimbo about the
restructuring (an interpretation that does not clearly
express what his preference was within the internal
discussions, if any). And we have had an interpretation
by Mike Snow, somewhat circumspectly expressed, of both
the demurral of direct Board involvement with setting up
the council, and the restructuring of the board, again
with fairly light amount of personal views revealed.
Antheres opinions have revealed that some of the
discussion was somewhat vexing, but even she hasn't
really given specifics, leaving us to try and read
between the lines what her own views might have been
like, though promising to speak more on the matter
later, and clearly encouraging the others on the
board to give their side of the matter.
And while the people who were on the private group to
explore the setting up of the council have demanded
public explanations, they haven't themselves gone first
and revealed what they presented to the board, or how
their proposal was prepared, what conflicting views
were balanced and how.
Somehow the situation reminds me of a poker game with
both players asking the other guy to show their cards
first.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l