Jimmy Wales wrote:
Erik Zachte wrote:
- Increasingly decison are taken by the board without too much prior
discussion in the open, at least on places where I would expect it, like on this mailing list.
I don't think so. I don't know of any examples. But if there are some things that you would like to bring up as specifics, I would love to consider them.
What about the committee resolutions, such as the following?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Special_projects http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Communications_committee
In particular, the "increasingly" perception is the one I want to combat, by trying to make it more clear how things are done, and how things have transitioned and continue to transition to having a lot more people involved.
I've heard that these days, most things are discussed and decided on a secret mailing list long before they become public. Is that true?
(#) I might add 'and created and/or sanctioned by the board'. The board reigns supremely. This does not make the board evil in any way, or its members less respectable, it does not discredit the committees or their members, far from it, all names of committee members that I recognize are of highly valued community members (I'm not even against any of the committees or their missions, heck I'm going to apply for a committee on invitation and of course undergo normal co-optation procedure) it is simply a control monopoly that I would like to see amended, to strenghten Wikimedia as an organisation.
In what way would you amend it? Keep in mind that we are an actual organization in the real world, and there are real legal responsibilities, very serious ones, that have to be met by the organization, and board members have a very heavy burden to be sure that these responsibilities are met. It would not be legal, for example, for the board to completely give up decision making authority over a lot of different things... but what we can do is involve more people (instead of me doing everything, which was the very old way, and then the board doing everything, which was the old way, to now an *increasingly* community oriented approach of committees and chapters).
You mean "community-oriented" as in oriented towards those people selected by Delphine and Danny to be on the committees? Sounds more like cabal-oriented to me.
I'm not sure I would favour to vote on everything, elections can be manipulated. Perhaps the tried system of discussing major choices until a consensus is reached would still work, this list is not flooded by hundreds of trolls, there is still a limited community interested in these issues.
I think we try really hard to do this, whenever possible. I am unaware of any major changes of direction which were not openly discussed until something approaching consensus is reached. Of course, this list does have some trolls, but almost everyone contributing here has a strong voice in the future course of the foundation in every way.
Answers.com deal? Committee selection process? Hey, what about the original bylaws of the Foundation, were they discussed until consensus was reached?
[...]
- The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down management.
Why do you suppose that an outsider would be chosen for this?
Do you have any candidates in mind at the moment? How many edits do each of them have?
troy
On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter troyhunter0@lycos.com wrote:
Why do you suppose that an outsider would be chosen for this?
Do you have any candidates in mind at the moment? How many edits do each of them have?
Oh yeah, let's adopt the Requests for Adminship process for chosing Wikimedia Foundation's employees and contractors. Or let's just count the edits, then probably a bot will become CEO. And thanks to Free Software anyone can write his own CEO. Great idea! ;)
-- Arne (akl)
Arne Klempert wrote:
On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter troyhunter0@lycos.com wrote:
Why do you suppose that an outsider would be chosen for this?
Do you have any candidates in mind at the moment? How many edits do each of them have?
Oh yeah, let's adopt the Requests for Adminship process for chosing Wikimedia Foundation's employees and contractors. Or let's just count the edits, then probably a bot will become CEO. And thanks to Free Software anyone can write his own CEO. Great idea! ;)
-- Arne (akl)
Hoi, When a bot can get the job, please consider RobotGMwikt .. it has clocked some 500.000+ edits easily.. probably many more. Giving this bot the job would expose some other projects as well. :) Thanks, GerardM
On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter troyhunter0@lycos.com wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee a minimal level of openness in the committees: - Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted against it? - Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter troyhunter0@lycos.com wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee a minimal level of openness in the committees:
- Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted
against it?
- Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
Erik
Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.
A little bit of explanation may help understand.
Cycle of life of a resolution.
When a resolution is started, it is in the "draft stage". All members may comment it on the talk page and modifications are made accordingly to the comments. Very few resolutions failed overall, because we usually modify resolutions until we know most of us will be happy with. A couple of time though, we did not give enough time to the draft stage. This is typically the case of this specific resolution.
After a while, the resolution is put in the "motion to vote" stage. Two board members must approve the motion.
Once two members have approved the "motion to vote" stage, the resolution goes to the vote stage.
During the vote stage, the resolution must not be modified (at least, this was how things worked first. Now, we accept minor modifications). We should all vote, but if three board members approve (majority), the resolution is passed.
--------
The resolution committee conduct was proposed by Angela. If I remember well, we both motionned it to vote very quickly (the same day). Too quickly... This was a mistake. Michael then opposed it and explained why on the talk page. Seeing there was disagreement, Jimbo abstained. Tim later opposed as well and gave his arguments.
The arguments given by Tim and Michael and which support their opposition make sense.
The resolution was
The Foundation grants authority to committees to fulfil certain tasks. In return, the Board asks that the committees report back on their activities, and have open and transparent processes wherever possible. It is hereby resolved that: 1 Every committee shall submit a report to the Board monthly. 2 Committee members conduct their activities publicly wherever possible, using internal means of communication only when confidentiality is required. 3 Committee membership shall be an open and transparent process, with all committee members being informed of changes to membership, and outsiders understanding how they may join the committee.
The arguments raised were
* It is always possibly to conduct activities publicly. Committees should conduct themselves in the best interest of the Foundation, whatever that may be. * When is confidentiality required (as opposed to desireable)? * Point three doesn't specify who will inform committee members; it is in the passive voice, and if taken literaly it says committee members violate the resolution by not being informed, which doesn't make a lot of sense. * this resolution seems to aim towards greater openness and transparency, which are desirable things, but like all desireable things there are costs and trade-offs involved. The resoultion does not seem informed of this problem of trade-offs. It says "using internal means of communication only when confidentiality is required" but without specify things like what are the criteria for determining if confidentiality is required, or, who makes this determination. * This resolution seems like an attempt to use broad, general rules to address a specific problem. Maybe its a good idea in this case but if we get in the habit of addressing procedural problems with Board resolutions, the result will likely be heavy-handed management by the Board, which I don't think would be desirable - for one thing it would not be very efficient.
I think all those arguments make sense. This resolution is too fluffy to be a good resolution. Point 1 is a very good point. Point 2 raises the issue of confidentiality (who defines what is confidential. what happens when there is a breach of confidentiality ?) Point 3 can not be a "rule", but only a guideline.
-------
- Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
None is in the drafting stage.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter troyhunter0@lycos.com wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee a minimal level of openness in the committees:
- Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted
against it?
- Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
There were concerns about the vagueness of the resolution, and some questions as to whether a board resolution was the proper venue for it. To my knowledge, there was complete and total board support for the general concept that committees should have a certain level of openness.
For example, consider the phrase "only when confidentiality is required" -- well, confidentiality is very seldom *required* in the sense of a legal requirement. But confidentiality is often the only sane course of action.
Consider for example, the communications committee. Part of our work is in figuring out the best strategy to deal with breaking news stories. We need to be able to talk openly about such things, without the concern that whatever we say may end up in the headlines. Confidentiality is not strictly speaking *required*, but having an environment where the committee members can not float some trial balloons ideas quietly with trusted friends would be absurd.
Or consider for example the special projects committee. We get all kinds of proposals all the time from various kinds of organizations. Many of these are silly, and committee members should feel free to say so. But not in public, where it could be embarassing to someone who has made a good faith proposal.
So, it seems to me that the best way to approach this is not with a formalistic board resolution (this is not our traditional way), but through ongoing dialog and discussion, rather than rules-based demands from the board.
--Jimbo
Troy Hunter wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Erik Zachte wrote:
- Increasingly decison are taken by the board without too much
prior discussion in the open, at least on places where I would expect it, like on this mailing list.
I don't think so. I don't know of any examples. But if there are some things that you would like to bring up as specifics, I would love to consider them.
What about the committee resolutions, such as the following?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Special_projects http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Communications_committee
Can you be more specific with your question? I am not sure I understand. The first resolution was something that we discussed at the board level but never quite came to a firm conclusion. I think that's one which we will revisit at some point in the future. The general idea was to make sure that committees not engage in excessive secrecy, which is a good idea, but at the same time, we did not want to encumber them with a lot of paranoia that they have to announce evertything all the time. Different board members had different perspectives on how to get those central points across.
The other two are creations of committees of volunteers. In some cases, the committees were simply formal recognition of what was already going on in the community, in other cases, these were delegations in a formal legal sense of what the board had previously done.
In particular, the "increasingly" perception is the one I want to combat, by trying to make it more clear how things are done, and how things have transitioned and continue to transition to having a lot more people involved.
I've heard that these days, most things are discussed and decided on a secret mailing list long before they become public. Is that true?
If it is true, I guess things are decided without me, since I am not on any secret mailing lists. There are some mailing lists which are not open to the general public, but I do not know of any serious objections to that: a lot of issues need to be handled with some discretion. Please remember that on more than one occassion, something said on a public mailing list at Wikimedia has made international headlines.
You mean "community-oriented" as in oriented towards those people selected by Delphine and Danny to be on the committees? Sounds more like cabal-oriented to me.
It sounds like you have a very specific complaint, so why don't we talk about that instead of talking generalities? Neither Delphine nor Danny are authorized to veto membership on any committee. Of the two committees that you mentioned by link, neither Delphine nor Danny is on the committee.
So, no, I do not mean any such thing. I mean community-oriented in the sense that the committees are made up of community members, and are self-organized rather than being micro-managed by the board. If you have a beef with some specific decision made by a commitee, please bring it forward.
--Jimbo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org