Hoi,
When the council is only a talking shop, not willing to take
responsibilities I do not understand its purpose. When a collection of
wikimedians have the pleasure of being part of this group, there will be
more people who will be outside of this group. When it is clear, observable
and in its papers what it is that they do and what you can expect of them,
it makes sense to have a council. Without this it is a well intentioned
waste of time and effort. Without this it wull become a source of resentment
because it is will be perceived as just another clique.
When the only deliverable is talk, policies etc without the will to
implement them and see them implemented, this observable intent is lacking
from the start.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
VC should, also, take care about all things
which
are related to the
community. This means that admins, bureaucrats,
stewards etc. should
be responsible to VC, not to the Board.
Admins and bureaucrats should be responsible to
community consensus within each project. Perhaps
certain community policies (i.e. EDP) might be
required to be approved by the VC. The community as a
whole might be tasked to find a consensus within X
boundary set by the VC or fork. But individuals in
these trusted community positions are not now
responsible to the board nor should they be
responsible to the VC.
Birgitte SB
I presume he is conceiving the VC as a super arbcom.
That's not what I think the VC should be about, but many people do see
arbcom as role of VC, and I respect that.
It's not a part of my vision either.
I think that a VC functioning as a
super arbcom would soon become an inescapable rabbit hole. It's
conceivable that a VC could eventually support the creation of a super
arbcom, but that would at least involve an entirely different set of
people. I do consider this a low priority issue.
I believe in project autonomy as an important principle. I believe that
a VC can draft standard policies, but that it could not force any
project to adopt them. It can probably step into projects that are on
life support, but should most assuredly not be meddling in the affairs
of a project that is operational.
Milos and I are both on the proposed PVC list, and there are obviously
issues that we would approach differently, but I don't see these
differences as irreconcilable. The problem, though, when we express
ourselves on a public list is the tendency of readers to assume that the
writer's views will necessarily prevail. If one person's views really
are so offbeat and radical it is an act of fundamental distrust to
believe that the other members will be unable to provide a
counterweight. No person on the list is authorized to represent the
official view of the PVC, because that Council has not yet been
established, and it has not yet named anyone to be its official
spokesperson.
I am often led to believe that the biggest enemies of openness are those
who complain most about the lack of openness. Someone who wants
openness needs to respect openly expressed views. If an open-minded
person expresses himself openly and honestly, and the only responses are
critical without constructive alternatives he will soon be looking for a
friendlier environment in which to express himself. Openness will be the
fist victim of that.
In the above exchange, Milos and Birgitte expressed views which could be
considered as conflicting, but they are not beyond solution. Neither,
as a reasonable person will treat his own views as inflexible, and each
will be happy to look for common ground.
One question that has been asked is what problem are we trying to
solve. Perhaps that problem is with adversarial attitudes, and the
tendency of some people to approach issues with a presumption of distrust.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l