Hi all,
A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired. Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009. Could someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement (will be/is) made?
Thanks,
Lodewijk
Eia wrote:
Hi all,
A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired. Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009. Could someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement (will be/is) made?
We're currently reevaluating the ombudsman commission as part of a larger rethinking of the committee system that was established some years ago, before the foundation had much in the way of staff or structure. This will be a significant topic in our board meeting next week, and I hope we can provide more information after the meeting.
In the meantime, if anyone would like to offer feedback, I would be very happy to hear it. In particular, ideas or suggestions on what our needs are and how best to satisfy them. I'm less interested in random complaints about this or that committee, I think we're already aware of most of the concerns that have been raised, although anyone who thinks they know of a problem nobody has ever mentioned before is welcome to contact me off-list. I'm more interested in analysis of how our committees work, what their strengths and limitations are, what can be reasonably expected of them, and how we should fill in the gaps.
--Michael Snow
Nathan wrote:
From your comments, Michael, can we infer that you are considering making
the monitoring and enforcement of the privacy policy, and the subpolicy [[m:checkuser]], a staff responsibility?
I suppose that's one possibility, but not one I was particularly focused on. Mike Godwin, to pick a possible candidate, already has more than enough work to do.
Rather, the point is that there's a sense the ombudsman commission, as currently constituted, has not been a fully satisfactory answer to the potential scope of issues. Now one reaction might simply be a change in personnel, but I think this is an appropriate point to reconsider the structure as well.
What system would work best for us here? Should it remain a committee? Another common approach is to have one person designated with that responsibility. In places where demand is large enough, the ombudsman might be an office or department, with support staff handling delegated assignments, and the Ombudsman ultimately in charge at its head. If we go with a designated person, that person might or might not be staff. Another possibility, with either the committee or designee approaches, is to "contract" this out to some other organization. If so, who? This is the kind of analysis I was inviting in my last message.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net writes:
Rather, the point is that there's a sense the ombudsman commission, as currently constituted, has not been a fully satisfactory answer to the potential scope of issues. Now one reaction might simply be a change in personnel, but I think this is an appropriate point to reconsider the structure as well.
I think the structure need changing. I was one of the first three ombudsmen, and I'm not satisfied with the very little I've done. One of the problems was of course that it was a completely new organization, with a very loosely defined task. Personally, I never got into the job because of this ad-hocery. So I think that if the present setup with three outside persons are to be kept, that the terms should be three times the interval between selecting a new member, so some continuity and routine could be retained. Otherwise it will be an uphill struggle for each new generation of ombudsmen.
Hm, I always saw the ombudsman commission as a commission very different and seperate from the whole commission structure. If I recall correctly, it was mainly to fill a Real Gap, namely an option to file complaints for breach of privacy policy. I think this clearly defined mission is quite different from for instance communication committee, special projects committee and chapters committee, which are much more vaguely defined, no clear purposes and with vague membership and authority to the outer world. As I saw and see it, is the ombudsman commission a replacement for a real ombudsman, a place to file complaints without having to go to court.
Therefore, I'd like to plea to remain this structure if there are no complaints about that as such, no matter what happens to the commission structure as a whole.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2009/1/2 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net
Eia wrote:
Hi all,
A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired. Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009.
Could
someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement (will be/is) made?
We're currently reevaluating the ombudsman commission as part of a larger rethinking of the committee system that was established some years ago, before the foundation had much in the way of staff or structure. This will be a significant topic in our board meeting next week, and I hope we can provide more information after the meeting.
In the meantime, if anyone would like to offer feedback, I would be very happy to hear it. In particular, ideas or suggestions on what our needs are and how best to satisfy them. I'm less interested in random complaints about this or that committee, I think we're already aware of most of the concerns that have been raised, although anyone who thinks they know of a problem nobody has ever mentioned before is welcome to contact me off-list. I'm more interested in analysis of how our committees work, what their strengths and limitations are, what can be reasonably expected of them, and how we should fill in the gaps.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
effe iets anders wrote:
Hm, I always saw the ombudsman commission as a commission very different and seperate from the whole commission structure. If I recall correctly, it was mainly to fill a Real Gap, namely an option to file complaints for breach of privacy policy. I think this clearly defined mission is quite different from for instance communication committee, special projects committee and chapters committee, which are much more vaguely defined, no clear purposes and with vague membership and authority to the outer world. As I saw and see it, is the ombudsman commission a replacement for a real ombudsman, a place to file complaints without having to go to court.
Therefore, I'd like to plea to remain this structure if there are no complaints about that as such, no matter what happens to the commission structure as a whole.
I don't expect that we will abolish the ombudsman function entirely, I didn't intend to give that impression. I appreciate that it has a rationale, but the sense I've gotten from feedback so far is that the existing system hasn't really met the needs of either the foundation or the affected parts of the community. That's an incomplete sample of information, though, so if somebody wants to speak up and make the case for why the current setup is the best approach, I'm certainly open to that as well.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Eia wrote:
Hi all,
A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired. Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009. Could someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement (will be/is) made?
We're currently reevaluating the ombudsman commission as part of a larger rethinking of the committee system that was established some years ago, before the foundation had much in the way of staff or structure. This will be a significant topic in our board meeting next week, and I hope we can provide more information after the meeting.
In the meantime, if anyone would like to offer feedback, I would be very happy to hear it. In particular, ideas or suggestions on what our needs are and how best to satisfy them. I'm less interested in random complaints about this or that committee, I think we're already aware of most of the concerns that have been raised, although anyone who thinks they know of a problem nobody has ever mentioned before is welcome to contact me off-list. I'm more interested in analysis of how our committees work, what their strengths and limitations are, what can be reasonably expected of them, and how we should fill in the gaps.
I took a trip down memory lane, having a vague recollection that I had in fact been the first to suggest a committee structure in my candidateship platform in the very first elections to the board of trustees in 2004. I found that at least Anthere had made some mention of work groups in her candidate platform (and no, I didn't bother digging up which of us was the first to edit that into our candidate statement). I did find that the way I formulated my thoughts then, has stood the test of time remarkably well (in terms of reflecting the general manner I still think about these things).
So without further ado, this is what I said then:
<quote> If other trustees agree; appointing /working groups/ of qualified people to prepare workable choises (in consultation with both the board of trustees and the users of the various Wikimedia projects) for policies and institutions that the users may adopt through either /consensus acclamation/ or if neccessary, /qualified majority voting/.
These working groups consisting of 3 to 5 /appointed members/ and 1 to 3 trustees from the board of trustees.
Suggested (incomplete) list of working groups:
* /Copyright and intellectual property licencing policies./ * /Member association structures and bylaws./ * /User community institutions and policies./ * /Crossproject integration./ * /Steering committee./ (This including the whole Board of trustees and a number of appointed members determined by the Board.)
</quote>
I infact have very little of consequence to add to these thoughts I then had, before there ever was a board of trustees. The starkest contrast between this and the current system is that all board members are not *inside* what is perhaps the semi-equivalent of the Steering committee in my proposal. That is to say, the advisory committee does not contain all of the board of trustees as its members.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org