Nathan wrote: 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

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(a)verizon.net>

Michael Snow wrote: 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