The Board simply said that any proposal in this area would come from the community. Power over the community comes from the community. If it would make you happier, the consensus provision can be changed to a 60% majority.
----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 9:25:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
What will make it unified? A mythical idea of consensus? What is consensus, as determined by the assembly? And what makes you think it would have any authority, after the board rejected the idea of giving the significantly better planned out Wikicouncil idea any authority?
-Dan On May 12, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Unlike the Assembly, Meta is not an structured body. The Assembly will serve as a unified community voice, not the meta aspects of projects.
----- Original Message ---- From: Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:15:08 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com What makes it any different than any current list or page?
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
As of this point the Community has no leadership body. This would step in and fill the void without disenfranchising the collective voice of the community.
This sounds to me very much like meta.wikimedia.org.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote: If it would make you happier, the consensus provision can be changed to a 60% majority.
We can rarely achieve a 60% majority consensus for most issues on this list, and its membership is smaller than that of an all-inclusive assembly. Depending on voting also makes numerical superiority more important than meaningful debate, so that a cultural or special-interest minority (likely including en-Wikipedia) would dominate the community through the assembly using numerical superiority. Reaching many bad decisions due to poor representation is worse than reaching few good decisions.
It'll work best if it incorporates video chat. There are all sorts of problems with purely text-based communication; people work together best when they can see each other.
(I know, I know, there's no open source video chat, right? There's no open source monitor manufacturer either; that doesn't mean I use a dotmatrix printout to see what the output is.)
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
If it would make you happier, the consensus provision can be changed to a 60% majority.
We can rarely achieve a 60% majority consensus for most issues on this list, and its membership is smaller than that of an all-inclusive assembly. Depending on voting also makes numerical superiority more important than meaningful debate, so that a cultural or special-interest minority (likely including en-Wikipedia) would dominate the community through the assembly using numerical superiority. Reaching many bad decisions due to poor representation is worse than reaching few good decisions.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
The Board simply said that any proposal in this area would come from the community. Power over the community comes from the community. If it would make you happier, the consensus provision can be changed to a 60% majority.
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com
What will make it unified? A mythical idea of consensus? What is consensus, as determined by the assembly? And what makes you think it would have any authority, after the board rejected the idea of giving the significantly better planned out Wikicouncil idea any authority?
Deciding on consensus or a 60% majority is not about making any one person happy. The best governance systems require the active participation of the governed. In reality the vast majority prefer to avoid anything that sounds like politics no matter how much their involvement is solicited.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org