Dear all,
I'd like to thank Florence for bringing the issue up of the wikicouncil, and I thank Erik for his views. I think that the discussion has shifted by now so much, that we are no longer discussing some council that represents the view of hte community anymore, but we are discussing the very fundamentals of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am sorry this will become a very long email, but I am afraight I will need a lot of space to explain what I mean, and also to go through the whole spectrum I'd like to.
I think Erik has a very valid point to state that we can't see the Wikicouncil as a seperate structure, just another addendum to our system of Board of Trustees, Advisory Board, Committees, Staff and community. If you add a "power", an "authority" to a system, and Newton's third law of motion comes into play. If you add such an authority, this will most certainly have influence on the other authorities present. Hence I do think that the question whether the community representatives are still required is a valid one. However, I do not quite agree yet that this also means that they have to disappear.
But let's begin with the beginning. The Board of Trustees (Please note the difference with the Board of Directors, I think nomen est omen here) is the final and uttermost authority within the Wikimedia Foundation. The Board of Trustees sets rules and guidelines for the staff to work with, appoints the Executive Director, sets the strategy for the Foundation, where to go etc, can write and rewrite the bylaws, can appoint it's own members and can delegate authority to other bodies (which it did for instance to the Executive Director).
Of course it *is* possible to change the bylaws in such a way, that this final authority would be with another body. This is for instance the case with a membership organization, an association. The final authority is then with the members of that association, the General Assemblee. However, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have any membership any more, so I think that for the near future at least, and I doubt it will change actually, we are bound to a foundation-structure, with the Board of Trustees as the Final Authority.
If we consider this, and we bare in mind that the main assets of the Wikimedia Foundation are the Wikimedia Projects. And we consider that these projects are mainly build around the communities that belong to these projects. Especially if we consider how big of an influence the Wikimedia Foundation has on the lives of these people, who have dedicated a big part of their free time to these projects, I think it would only be fair to let these people have a say, even a big say in the final authority of this Wikimedia Foundation. But of course it is even more important that these people have a large influence on the projects, but also have a lot of knowledge about the core mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and how to get there. They might very well know how the projects should run the best. So I think that it is obvious that these people should have a way to determine at least partially how the Final Authority functions. The most logical way would be to let them determine partially who will be a member of that Final Authority, the Board of Trustees.
This has already become costom, and the community elects yearly board members. I think this is a way to let the communities have a say in the membership of the Board of Trustees. However, iit is true of course that it might be better for the Foundation as a foundation to have also people with certain expertise in this Board. They can for instance make sure that the Board pays attention to the right advice, that the right points are put on the agenda, and that control is practiced when needed.
The past history showed us that people with this type of expertise will hardly be elected by the communities, partially because they are simply not available as candidates from within the communities. This makes it reasonable to have these people appointed as board members from outside the wikimedia communities. Actually, there are even more pro's to have people from outside the community in the Board. These board members might bring in fresh views on the way things are going, they might bring in contacts with other organizations, they might forceus to look outside our traditional scope and might also point us to opportunities we'd never have thought of ourselves.
I think that both community members and non-community member experts are very much welcome in the Board. Both have their advantages, and I think personally that about 50/50 would be an ideal mix for this. This because that will make it sure that both parties will always have to try to convice the other side of their right, to get a majority on their side if it is about very fundamental questions.
Then I hear people thinking, OK, very nice now, we thought about the Board of Trustees. But what about these other authorities? Well, I think we all agree on the staff. The staff falls under the authority of the Executive Director. The executive Director is appointed by the board, and all other staff is hired within the lines the Board set out by the ED. No doubt about that I think.
But now we come to the advises. Because a board can never consist of enough experts to cover every field, I do not think a Board should even want that, except the very fundamentals, an Advisory Board has been set up. The advisory Board consists of experts from the Open Source communities, but not directly from Wikimedia people. The Advisory Board has, as the name indicates, an advisory function. Because of the broad spectrum of members, it is likely that there will always be a kinda expert on board to give advice if the board asks or needs that. However, it does disturb the balance between the volunteers and professionals a bit.
Since the creation of the Advisory Board, or even before that actually, people have been calling for a Wikicouncil. A council which is different for everybody. Some people would like to see it as an advisory board counterweight for volunteers, A body that could give the Board of Trustees advice "from the community". However, there are also people who would like to see the WC as some kind of tribunal for the Wikimedia Communities, which would handle disputes, would be an uberarbcom or could be some type of parliament deciding which policy is wikimedia wide.
I think we have to be very carefull to share these responsibilities with one single body, because it will require a different type of members. For the function of advising, we would need people who can feel a bit what is good, who are preferrably into organizational stuff, are prepared to read a lot, and have a good look for the future, and can form an opinion on where the foundation should go, and what the implications would be.
For a court-like function, we would require mainly neutral people, people who can be some type of arbitrator. People who can take a case solely, and digg into it, form a judgement, and defend that. They should mainly have experience in how communities work, and how the relationships between the different communities should be.
For the last possible function, the policy stuff, we would need some type of parliament-like council. It would require the members to look at the mid-term effects, and would require very little activity. The members should mainly be discussing details and specific regulations, how they should be formulated etc.
These three types of people are not always compatible, and I would not think it very wise to have these three functions merged together in one body. For the arbcom-like part, I think it would for instance be much better to have a non-WMF body, a meta-arbcom for instance, that could make decisions if needed. There have been plans for that, but never in a final state.
What the Wikimedia Foundation needs here, is an advisory body that consists of community members, that can probably represent more or less the wish of the community, and which can have a say about the issues the Board of Trustees is about, the strategy etc. This would be a Wikimedia Council that would consist of somewhat more members the the Board probably, to make representation possible, and that would be similar to the Advisory Board.
However, as might be clear by now, this does not mean that the community representatives are no longer needed in the Board of Trustees. Because there is quite a difference between representatives in the Final Authority, and an Advisory Council.
Finally, I'd like to make a small mention about the size of the Board of Trustees. To make the external experts useful, there will have to be a few of them. Only one or two will not do. I think three external experts, three community members and Jimmy would be ideal. This would be a compromise between having a community majority in the board, having sufficient external experts and different community representatives, and keeping the board small enough to have real life meetups to talk about the strategy. At the same time, Jimmy could promise again that if all community representatives agree on something, he will vote with them. (like he did with Angela/Florence in the past. Actually I am not sure if he still stands with that promise)
To summarize: It is necessary to have both community representatives and external experts with their specific skills in the Board of Trustees. A Wikimedia Council should be comparable with the current Advisory Board, but then for volunteers. It is not necessary to have all experts in the Board of Trustees, but they might very well be in the Advisory Board too. It might though be wise for the Board of Trustees to involve these experts then somewhat more actively.
I hope you did not loose track, and I did not forget stuff here. Sorry again for the veyr long email.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
On 1/2/08, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote: . . . <lots of good and thoughtful stuff> . . .
This has already become costom, and the community elects yearly board members.
Bi-yearly (or "biannually") if I understood correctly. As I understand it those who are going to be elected in June of 2008 will stand till 2010 (please correct me if I am wrong); and those whose term continues to 2009 will be up for re-election then, to another two year term, or something like that...
I have to confess that the vagueness of Antheres statements on this matter gives me some pause.
. . . <lots of other good comments about what advice might be useful from outside> . . .
However, as might be clear by now, this does not mean that the community representatives are no longer needed in the Board of Trustees. Because there is quite a difference between representatives in the Final Authority, and an Advisory Council.
. . . <talk about the size of the board of trustees, which I won't comment on> . . .
To summarize: It is necessary to have both community representatives and external experts with their specific skills in the Board of Trustees. A Wikimedia Council should be comparable with the current Advisory Board, but then for volunteers. It is not necessary to have all experts in the Board of Trustees, but they might very well be in the Advisory Board too. It might though be wise for the Board of Trustees to involve these experts then somewhat more actively.
This is the point I would like to focus on. How vital is the necessity to have these experts directly on the board? That is as a trustee who votes directly on bylaws etc. Wouldn't it be possible to consider what could be directly delegated to the board of advisors (and other organs of the foundation where outside contributions would be welcome), if the wish is for certain matters to be handled by non-community experts?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
effe iets anders wrote:
Dear all,
I'd like to thank Florence for bringing the issue up of the wikicouncil, and I thank Erik for his views. I think that the discussion has shifted by now so much, that we are no longer discussing some council that represents the view of hte community anymore, but we are discussing the very fundamentals of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am sorry this will become a very long email, but I am afraight I will need a lot of space to explain what I mean, and also to go through the whole spectrum I'd like to.
I think Erik has a very valid point to state that we can't see the Wikicouncil as a seperate structure, just another addendum to our system of Board of Trustees, Advisory Board, Committees, Staff and community. If you add a "power", an "authority" to a system, and Newton's third law of motion comes into play. If you add such an authority, this will most certainly have influence on the other authorities present. Hence I do think that the question whether the community representatives are still required is a valid one. However, I do not quite agree yet that this also means that they have to disappear.
But let's begin with the beginning. The Board of Trustees (Please note the difference with the Board of Directors, I think nomen est omen here) is the final and uttermost authority within the Wikimedia Foundation. The Board of Trustees sets rules and guidelines for the staff to work with, appoints the Executive Director, sets the strategy for the Foundation, where to go etc, can write and rewrite the bylaws, can appoint it's own members and can delegate authority to other bodies (which it did for instance to the Executive Director).
Of course it *is* possible to change the bylaws in such a way, that this final authority would be with another body. This is for instance the case with a membership organization, an association. The final authority is then with the members of that association, the General Assemblee. However, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have any membership any more, so I think that for the near future at least, and I doubt it will change actually, we are bound to a foundation-structure, with the Board of Trustees as the Final Authority.
If we consider this, and we bare in mind that the main assets of the Wikimedia Foundation are the Wikimedia Projects. And we consider that these projects are mainly build around the communities that belong to these projects. Especially if we consider how big of an influence the Wikimedia Foundation has on the lives of these people, who have dedicated a big part of their free time to these projects, I think it would only be fair to let these people have a say, even a big say in the final authority of this Wikimedia Foundation. But of course it is even more important that these people have a large influence on the projects, but also have a lot of knowledge about the core mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and how to get there. They might very well know how the projects should run the best. So I think that it is obvious that these people should have a way to determine at least partially how the Final Authority functions. The most logical way would be to let them determine partially who will be a member of that Final Authority, the Board of Trustees.
This has already become costom, and the community elects yearly board members. I think this is a way to let the communities have a say in the membership of the Board of Trustees. However, iit is true of course that it might be better for the Foundation as a foundation to have also people with certain expertise in this Board. They can for instance make sure that the Board pays attention to the right advice, that the right points are put on the agenda, and that control is practiced when needed.
The past history showed us that people with this type of expertise will hardly be elected by the communities, partially because they are simply not available as candidates from within the communities. This makes it reasonable to have these people appointed as board members from outside the wikimedia communities. Actually, there are even more pro's to have people from outside the community in the Board. These board members might bring in fresh views on the way things are going, they might bring in contacts with other organizations, they might forceus to look outside our traditional scope and might also point us to opportunities we'd never have thought of ourselves.
I think that both community members and non-community member experts are very much welcome in the Board. Both have their advantages, and I think personally that about 50/50 would be an ideal mix for this. This because that will make it sure that both parties will always have to try to convice the other side of their right, to get a majority on their side if it is about very fundamental questions.
Then I hear people thinking, OK, very nice now, we thought about the Board of Trustees. But what about these other authorities? Well, I think we all agree on the staff. The staff falls under the authority of the Executive Director. The executive Director is appointed by the board, and all other staff is hired within the lines the Board set out by the ED. No doubt about that I think.
But now we come to the advises. Because a board can never consist of enough experts to cover every field, I do not think a Board should even want that, except the very fundamentals, an Advisory Board has been set up. The advisory Board consists of experts from the Open Source communities, but not directly from Wikimedia people. The Advisory Board has, as the name indicates, an advisory function. Because of the broad spectrum of members, it is likely that there will always be a kinda expert on board to give advice if the board asks or needs that. However, it does disturb the balance between the volunteers and professionals a bit.
Since the creation of the Advisory Board, or even before that actually, people have been calling for a Wikicouncil. A council which is different for everybody. Some people would like to see it as an advisory board counterweight for volunteers, A body that could give the Board of Trustees advice "from the community". However, there are also people who would like to see the WC as some kind of tribunal for the Wikimedia Communities, which would handle disputes, would be an uberarbcom or could be some type of parliament deciding which policy is wikimedia wide.
I think we have to be very carefull to share these responsibilities with one single body, because it will require a different type of members. For the function of advising, we would need people who can feel a bit what is good, who are preferrably into organizational stuff, are prepared to read a lot, and have a good look for the future, and can form an opinion on where the foundation should go, and what the implications would be.
For a court-like function, we would require mainly neutral people, people who can be some type of arbitrator. People who can take a case solely, and digg into it, form a judgement, and defend that. They should mainly have experience in how communities work, and how the relationships between the different communities should be.
For the last possible function, the policy stuff, we would need some type of parliament-like council. It would require the members to look at the mid-term effects, and would require very little activity. The members should mainly be discussing details and specific regulations, how they should be formulated etc.
These three types of people are not always compatible, and I would not think it very wise to have these three functions merged together in one body. For the arbcom-like part, I think it would for instance be much better to have a non-WMF body, a meta-arbcom for instance, that could make decisions if needed. There have been plans for that, but never in a final state.
What the Wikimedia Foundation needs here, is an advisory body that consists of community members, that can probably represent more or less the wish of the community, and which can have a say about the issues the Board of Trustees is about, the strategy etc. This would be a Wikimedia Council that would consist of somewhat more members the the Board probably, to make representation possible, and that would be similar to the Advisory Board.
However, as might be clear by now, this does not mean that the community representatives are no longer needed in the Board of Trustees. Because there is quite a difference between representatives in the Final Authority, and an Advisory Council.
Finally, I'd like to make a small mention about the size of the Board of Trustees. To make the external experts useful, there will have to be a few of them. Only one or two will not do. I think three external experts, three community members and Jimmy would be ideal. This would be a compromise between having a community majority in the board, having sufficient external experts and different community representatives, and keeping the board small enough to have real life meetups to talk about the strategy. At the same time, Jimmy could promise again that if all community representatives agree on something, he will vote with them. (like he did with Angela/Florence in the past. Actually I am not sure if he still stands with that promise)
To summarize: It is necessary to have both community representatives and external experts with their specific skills in the Board of Trustees. A Wikimedia Council should be comparable with the current Advisory Board, but then for volunteers. It is not necessary to have all experts in the Board of Trustees, but they might very well be in the Advisory Board too. It might though be wise for the Board of Trustees to involve these experts then somewhat more actively.
I hope you did not loose track, and I did not forget stuff here. Sorry again for the veyr long email.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
Lodewijk, as always, very thoughtful email. Thank you for it.
A couple of thoughts
You outlined very well three different potential roles in the wikicouncil * an advisory board with community members * a sort of tribunal, which would handle disputes project wide (meta arbcom) * a sort of parliament, developing policies wikimedia wide
There might be a fourth role, * development role (proposing projects, and looking for organizations who could help fund/implement them). Though I think this one could be "parliament type)
You outline very well that the three roles rather requires different skills and personnalities. I agree with this.
And I feel like suggesting that we should actually take the opportunity to create at the same time * a wikicouncil parliament type and * a meta arbcom
I think most of us can rather well imagine what the meta arbcom role will be; the difficulty will be to define working relationships with the various local arbcoms.
As for the wikicouncil, I stick to the idea that it should not be advisory only, but definitly have a a decision making authority.
I think advice will occur more or less naturally from this group, or from the current advisory group. It might be worth it to add some community members to the current advisory group.
Do not forget to check the meta page on wikicouncil :-)
Ant
On Jan 4, 2008 11:35 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
And I feel like suggesting that we should actually take the opportunity to create at the same time
- a wikicouncil parliament type and
- a meta arbcom
I think most of us can rather well imagine what the meta arbcom role will be; the difficulty will be to define working relationships with the various local arbcoms.
I actually have some trouble trying to imagine what the meta arbcom would do. Can you shed some light on that or refer me to related proposals on-wiki or elsewhere?
Thanks,
Sebastian
Sebastian Moleski wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 11:35 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
And I feel like suggesting that we should actually take the opportunity to create at the same time
- a wikicouncil parliament type and
- a meta arbcom
I think most of us can rather well imagine what the meta arbcom role will be; the difficulty will be to define working relationships with the various local arbcoms.
I actually have some trouble trying to imagine what the meta arbcom would do. Can you shed some light on that or refer me to related proposals on-wiki or elsewhere?
Thanks,
Sebastian
Okay. Essentially, we have a problem when a vandal or at least a problematic person, is active on several projects at the same time. Cross wiki fighting.
What happens is that the stewards are called to the rescue, and asked to make decisions, which sometimes are at arbitration level, or which may conflict with local policies. Officially, stewards are applicants. But sometimes, they have to run into decision making.
There has been an embryo of a proposal here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_committee
Ant
Actually, there are lots of possible task descriptions for meta arbcom as well. Some people want an arbcom to watch over the smaller projects. Some people (projects?) want a committee where they can go to if they do not like the result of the local arbcom. Some people want a committee that can tell them whether certain local policy is allowed and reasonable or not. And you can go on like that. I think that everything courts do in our societies could potentially be scaled to a meta arbcom. However, I am absolutely not confident that all tasks should be given to this meta arbcom. I think that the opinions differ very much about this subject.
BR, lodewijk
2008/1/4, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Sebastian Moleski wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 11:35 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
And I feel like suggesting that we should actually take the opportunity to create at the same time
- a wikicouncil parliament type and
- a meta arbcom
I think most of us can rather well imagine what the meta arbcom role will be; the difficulty will be to define working relationships with the various local arbcoms.
I actually have some trouble trying to imagine what the meta arbcom would do. Can you shed some light on that or refer me to related proposals on-wiki or elsewhere?
Thanks,
Sebastian
Okay. Essentially, we have a problem when a vandal or at least a problematic person, is active on several projects at the same time. Cross wiki fighting.
What happens is that the stewards are called to the rescue, and asked to make decisions, which sometimes are at arbitration level, or which may conflict with local policies. Officially, stewards are applicants. But sometimes, they have to run into decision making.
There has been an embryo of a proposal here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_committee
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Whatever its responsibilities, the meta-ArbCom should have its membership selected from among active ArbCom members of other projects, perhaps as a meta-representative selected by the local ArbCom itself. I can foresee arguments based on workload and/or removing an active elected ArbCom member from a local project, but I think the benefits far outweight the negatives here (a multilingual election that is local to no project and attracts only voters who are active on meta).
On 04/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever its responsibilities, the meta-ArbCom should have its membership selected from among active ArbCom members of other projects, perhaps as a meta-representative selected by the local ArbCom itself. I can foresee arguments based on workload and/or removing an active elected ArbCom member from a local project, but I think the benefits far outweight the negatives here (a multilingual election that is local to no project and attracts only voters who are active on meta).
The big problem with that is that projects without their own arbcom (small projects, I guess) would not be represented. Selecting admins/crats from smaller projects would be a possible solution.
The committee cannot feasibly be completely multilingual - discussions have to take place in one language to be at all practical (we can't have everything translated into every language - it works for the UN, it won't work for us). That language will, presumably, be English (it doesn't have to be, but that's likely to work best), so there will need to be a requirement that members of the committee speak reasonable English. It's an unfortunate restriction, but I can't see any way around it.
On 1/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Whatever its responsibilities, the meta-ArbCom should have its membership selected from among active ArbCom members of other projects, perhaps as a meta-representative selected by the local ArbCom itself. I can foresee arguments based on workload and/or removing an active elected ArbCom member from a local project, but I think the benefits far outweight the negatives here (a multilingual election that is local to no project and attracts only voters who are active on meta).
The big problem with that is that projects without their own arbcom (small projects, I guess) would not be represented. Selecting admins/crats from smaller projects would be a possible solution.
The committee cannot feasibly be completely multilingual - discussions have to take place in one language to be at all practical (we can't have everything translated into every language - it works for the UN, it won't work for us). That language will, presumably, be English (it doesn't have to be, but that's likely to work best), so there will need to be a requirement that members of the committee speak reasonable English. It's an unfortunate restriction, but I can't see any way around it.
I can easily see a way around it.
The same method as has been sometimes suggested as a regulated workflow on the monolingual arbcoms, and is defacto happening at least on the english wikipedia arbcom, in a fairly granularized manner.
Not have every arbcom member available for each case.
It might work on the basis of having a dedicated French language section of the arbcom, a Dutch language section of the arbcom, a Portuguese language section of the arbcom and so forth, with co-mingling between arbitrators from different language teams being an exception rather than a rule.
Or it might be that every arbcom case would work on a pick and mix principle, with arbitrators specifically announcing they are available for a case, either being able to understand the working language, or bringing in an assistant to help them understand the issues as they pertain to things said in the working language.
The fact that this would entail bringing in a fairly large pool of arbitrators, to me is a plus than a negative, as it would naturally decrease the workload on any one arbitrator.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
I can easily see a way around it.
The same method as has been sometimes suggested as a regulated workflow on the monolingual arbcoms, and is defacto happening at least on the english wikipedia arbcom, in a fairly granularized manner.
Not have every arbcom member available for each case.
It might work on the basis of having a dedicated French language section of the arbcom, a Dutch language section of the arbcom, a Portuguese language section of the arbcom and so forth, with co-mingling between arbitrators from different language teams being an exception rather than a rule.
Or it might be that every arbcom case would work on a pick and mix principle, with arbitrators specifically announcing they are available for a case, either being able to understand the working language, or bringing in an assistant to help them understand the issues as they pertain to things said in the working language.
The fact that this would entail bringing in a fairly large pool of arbitrators, to me is a plus than a negative, as it would naturally decrease the workload on any one arbitrator.
If you're doing that, you might as well just give the cases to randomly chosen local arbcoms. It's an idea to consider, but I think a true meta-arbcom would be better.
On 1/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I can easily see a way around it.
The same method as has been sometimes suggested as a regulated workflow on the monolingual arbcoms, and is defacto happening at least on the english wikipedia arbcom, in a fairly granularized manner.
Not have every arbcom member available for each case.
It might work on the basis of having a dedicated French language section of the arbcom, a Dutch language section of the arbcom, a Portuguese language section of the arbcom and so forth, with co-mingling between arbitrators from different language teams being an exception rather than a rule.
Or it might be that every arbcom case would work on a pick and mix principle, with arbitrators specifically announcing they are available for a case, either being able to understand the working language, or bringing in an assistant to help them understand the issues as they pertain to things said in the working language.
The fact that this would entail bringing in a fairly large pool of arbitrators, to me is a plus than a negative, as it would naturally decrease the workload on any one arbitrator.
If you're doing that, you might as well just give the cases to randomly chosen local arbcoms. It's an idea to consider, but I think a true meta-arbcom would be better.
I am not sure I quite agree. The local arbitrators on say the Portuguese wikipedia might not have been chosen for their familiarity with minor languages in the (former and current) Portuguese colonies, just as an example, which a putative meta arbcom team with a working language of Portuguese, might quite easily be.
I don't quite see how a pure english language meta-arbcom would be truer.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
I am not sure I quite agree. The local arbitrators on say the Portuguese wikipedia might not have been chosen for their familiarity with minor languages in the (former and current) Portuguese colonies, just as an example, which a putative meta arbcom team with a working language of Portuguese, might quite easily be.
I guess that all depends on what responsibilities the meta-arbcom would have, which I don't think has been decided on. If it's primarily arbitrating disputes (as the name would suggest), the skills needed are much the same regardless of the nature of the dispute.
I don't quite see how a pure english language meta-arbcom would be truer.
It wouldn't be an English Language arbcom, it would an arbcom that uses English as a lingua franca. That's the only way to allow people from different languages to work together to resolve issues, which I think would be a good feature of a central arbcom.
May be most useful to contribute to the discussion linked above by Anthere.
~Nate
Florence, thanks for your considerations.
If I read correctly, you compare a wikicouncil in the WMF structure (so not the meta-arbcom type, as that is imho in the community structure) with a parliament. I tend to disagree with this comparison, and I'll try to explain why.
In a democratic state, a parliament (or actually the people) is the Final Authority. The Parliament hires and fires government, which in their turn hires and fires the rest of the system. But at the end, they have to listen to the Parliament. The Parliament has a few very powerful tools, and can send the Government home. The Parliament makes laws, and can set rules. The Parliament is also the only institution that can change the relationships between the different bodies. The body which can change these relationships and tools, is to me the Final Authority.
In the Wikimedia Foundation (excluding the community (I take here only the officially existing bodies), the Board of Trustees is the Final Authority. The Board writes bylaws, and hires and fires staff. The Board appoints the committees, and the Board can appoint members of the Advosiry Council. I think we agree that the Board of Trustees should remain the Final Authority, also if a Wikicouncil would come in the game. That makes it for me that I do not really like the comparison with the parliament.
I think that it is also better to let the Board of Trustees, preferably with both volunteers and professionals in it imho, stay the Final Authority. The idea is that the Trustees are to be "trusted". We put wise people together, and build in certain control mechanisms such as a majority (or pseudo-majority, with a trusted professional making the majority) of members elected by the community.
If we would want to give the community full authority directly over the Final Authority, I think we chose the wrong model with a Foundation, and we should switch to a membership organization. Then the members (the Wikicouncil?) would be the Final Authority.
However, I would like to propose something else. I am not sure if it is a known system in companies abroad, but in the Netherlands the larger companies (>50 employees) are obliged to have a "ondernemingsraad". This is a council of employees that has four rights: * The right to discuss with the employer about decisions. The employer is obliged to cooperate with this with a certain group of defined decisions. * The right to be asked for advice. The employer is obliged to ask the advice of this council for certain decisions. He is not obliged to follow this advice. However, he will have to consider it seriously, and has to motivate if he does not follow it. * The right to be asked for approval. In decisions which have a direct impact on the employees, the employer is obliged to ask approval of the council. He can only ignore this through legal procedures. * The right of initiative. The Council can make proposals for the employer, which will have to consider these seriously. (derived from: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ondernemingsraad , GFDL, see the url for the authors and license information)
Of course this would in our case not be with staff members to choose this council of "emplyees", but the council would be elected and made up by the "employees" of the Wikimedia Projects, the volunteers. And of course the four rights would have to be tweaked a bit as well, but the general outline might be clear. I would call this council something like a Volunteer Council. It would not have a direct authority perhaps, but through the board, which could agree to generally follow advices on certain matters pro forma, so that de facto, the Volunteer Council would have authority. This volunteer coulcil would, in my vision, have more or less the following rights (to be specified): * The right to be informed on decisions that immediately have an impact on the community. If needed confidentially and to discuss Board decisions (and Executive Staff decisions?) if they have a relation to the projects (not relating to personnel matters etc, would have to be worked out more precisely) * The right of initialive proposals related to a set of topics. (needs to be worked out further) * The right to be asked for advice in matters that have a direct impact on the community and projects, such as advertisements and licenses. * The right to be asked for approval to a more specific set of topics. I would like to limit this right, as imho, the advice should already be taken seriously. It would for instance include Organizational Reorganization (as in: bodies seize to exist, the tools of bodies are changed radically, the number of community rep's changes in the board of trustees etc), very big expenses such as the buying of an office building or in the most extreme case the fusion of the Foundation with another organization. However, I would also like to add the possibility here, as we want to avoid court at *all* cost here, that the Board of Trustees can overrule a non-approval with a 75% majority or so. Note that this explicitely is not to be merged with the right of initiative. The Volunteer Council could not make a binding proposal in this category. (although it should be taken seriously etc)
I think that this would make the Wikimedia Foundation into a very balanced organization. I could imagine similar rights for the Advosiry Board by the way. (although maybe on other subjects) That way there is a good balance between volunteers and outsiders/professionals.
Please bear in mind that in no way this proposal is complete yet. It depends on a lot of factors, and quite important "details" have to be discussed yet. Such as the area's on which the Volunteer Council (I prefer this name over the very vague Wikicouncil) has authority, and more importantly, on which not. (Just like it has been determined in the staff/board/ed relationship)
OK, I give a great hug and a virtual stroopwafel and package of vla to every one that has read up to this very end, because again this email is too long. Sorry for it.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
On 1/5/08, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
In the Wikimedia Foundation (excluding the community (I take here only the officially existing bodies), the Board of Trustees is the Final Authority. The Board writes bylaws, and hires and fires staff. The Board appoints the committees, and the Board can appoint members of the Advosiry Council. I think we agree that the Board of Trustees should remain the Final Authority, also if a Wikicouncil would come in the game. That makes it for me that I do not really like the comparison with the parliament.
Uhm. Is this really the case? I thought the committees had various orgainzing principles, some of them self-appointing, and some more closely run by the board. Do I have it wrong? I don't see all that many board resolutions on the appointing of members into committees.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
In a democratic state, a parliament (or actually the people) is the Final Authority.
The WMF isn't a democracy. The analogy of a parliament works, but only if you think of it as being a parliament of a few hundred years ago. The monarch was the final authority and delegated certain powers to the parliament. I think that pretty accurately describes what Ant is suggesting.
I have a question:
There exists mechanisms that deal with the problems that the arbitration committee may face. Anybody can request for comments, or even more informally, start a page on meta and invite discussions.
Meta-arbitration is an interesting concept. But it has inherent un-wikiness. As it has potential influence wider than that of the stewards, and even close to that of the trustees, its legitimacy should be proportional or related to participation.
I have two basic questions. 1. Would this meta-arbitration committee's jurisdiction cover a project which had decided not to participate?
2. Would the meta-arbitration committee accept a case *within* one project brought on by someone who has hardly participate in that project, or otherwise clearly is not a community member?
Best, H.
On 04/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In a democratic state, a parliament (or actually the people) is the Final Authority.
The WMF isn't a democracy. The analogy of a parliament works, but only if you think of it as being a parliament of a few hundred years ago. The monarch was the final authority and delegated certain powers to the parliament. I think that pretty accurately describes what Ant is suggesting.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/5/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In a democratic state, a parliament (or actually the people) is the Final Authority.
The WMF isn't a democracy. The analogy of a parliament works, but only if you think of it as being a parliament of a few hundred years ago. The monarch was the final authority and delegated certain powers to the parliament. I think that pretty accurately describes what Ant is suggesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zemsky_Sobor
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
effe iets anders wrote:
Florence, thanks for your considerations.
If I read correctly, you compare a wikicouncil in the WMF structure (so not the meta-arbcom type, as that is imho in the community structure) with a parliament. I tend to disagree with this comparison, and I'll try to explain why.
In a democratic state, a parliament (or actually the people) is the Final Authority. The Parliament hires and fires government, which in their turn hires and fires the rest of the system. But at the end, they have to listen to the Parliament. The Parliament has a few very powerful tools, and can send the Government home. The Parliament makes laws, and can set rules. The Parliament is also the only institution that can change the relationships between the different bodies. The body which can change these relationships and tools, is to me the Final Authority.
In the Wikimedia Foundation (excluding the community (I take here only the officially existing bodies), the Board of Trustees is the Final Authority. The Board writes bylaws, and hires and fires staff. The Board appoints the committees, and the Board can appoint members of the Advosiry Council. I think we agree that the Board of Trustees should remain the Final Authority, also if a Wikicouncil would come in the game. That makes it for me that I do not really like the comparison with the parliament.
I think that it is also better to let the Board of Trustees, preferably with both volunteers and professionals in it imho, stay the Final Authority. The idea is that the Trustees are to be "trusted". We put wise people together, and build in certain control mechanisms such as a majority (or pseudo-majority, with a trusted professional making the majority) of members elected by the community.
If we would want to give the community full authority directly over the Final Authority, I think we chose the wrong model with a Foundation, and we should switch to a membership organization. Then the members (the Wikicouncil?) would be the Final Authority.
I can immediately say that I should not have used the term parliament, because it clearly represent different things for people :-)
In my country, which is a democratic state amha, the Parliament absolutely NOT hires and fires government. God forbid ! The Government is headed by the president. The president is elected by the citizen, by direct voting system. Once the president is elected, he select his government. And the president can also fire and replace the entire government. That's his job. The Parliament has nothing to say here.
The Parliament is also elected by citizens, by direct voting.
It may happen that the majority of the Parliament is on the right side. Whilst the President is on the left side.
I have no idea really what is the final authority in my country. Certainly NOT the Parliament. I would say the Cour Constitionnelle. Perhaps. In the USA, the Suprem Court ?
Whatever. I think you are hitting this point because you do not give enough granularity to the various roles we are considering. Right now, I do not consider the board a final authority in everything. Sure enough, it has probably the final authority in deciding whether to vote the budget of the organization or not. But the WMF board has no final authority to approve the budget of Wikimedia Deutschland. And the WMF board has no final authority to decide whether an article should be in that version or in another, unless it is threatened legally (host provider responsibility). It has no special authority to decide whether a bugger should be banned or not. It has no final authority to decide a person should be made sysop or not. It has no final authority when the community decides to have a wikimeet or to hold a wiki contest for the best article.
For your proposition below, I'll give it a couple of days of thinking.
Ant
However, I would like to propose something else. I am not sure if it is a known system in companies abroad, but in the Netherlands the larger companies (>50 employees) are obliged to have a "ondernemingsraad". This is a council of employees that has four rights:
- The right to discuss with the employer about decisions. The employer
is obliged to cooperate with this with a certain group of defined decisions.
- The right to be asked for advice. The employer is obliged to ask the
advice of this council for certain decisions. He is not obliged to follow this advice. However, he will have to consider it seriously, and has to motivate if he does not follow it.
- The right to be asked for approval. In decisions which have a direct
impact on the employees, the employer is obliged to ask approval of the council. He can only ignore this through legal procedures.
- The right of initiative. The Council can make proposals for the
employer, which will have to consider these seriously. (derived from: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ondernemingsraad , GFDL, see the url for the authors and license information)
Of course this would in our case not be with staff members to choose this council of "emplyees", but the council would be elected and made up by the "employees" of the Wikimedia Projects, the volunteers. And of course the four rights would have to be tweaked a bit as well, but the general outline might be clear. I would call this council something like a Volunteer Council. It would not have a direct authority perhaps, but through the board, which could agree to generally follow advices on certain matters pro forma, so that de facto, the Volunteer Council would have authority. This volunteer coulcil would, in my vision, have more or less the following rights (to be specified):
- The right to be informed on decisions that immediately have an
impact on the community. If needed confidentially and to discuss Board decisions (and Executive Staff decisions?) if they have a relation to the projects (not relating to personnel matters etc, would have to be worked out more precisely)
- The right of initialive proposals related to a set of topics. (needs
to be worked out further)
- The right to be asked for advice in matters that have a direct
impact on the community and projects, such as advertisements and licenses.
- The right to be asked for approval to a more specific set of topics.
I would like to limit this right, as imho, the advice should already be taken seriously. It would for instance include Organizational Reorganization (as in: bodies seize to exist, the tools of bodies are changed radically, the number of community rep's changes in the board of trustees etc), very big expenses such as the buying of an office building or in the most extreme case the fusion of the Foundation with another organization. However, I would also like to add the possibility here, as we want to avoid court at *all* cost here, that the Board of Trustees can overrule a non-approval with a 75% majority or so. Note that this explicitely is not to be merged with the right of initiative. The Volunteer Council could not make a binding proposal in this category. (although it should be taken seriously etc)
I think that this would make the Wikimedia Foundation into a very balanced organization. I could imagine similar rights for the Advosiry Board by the way. (although maybe on other subjects) That way there is a good balance between volunteers and outsiders/professionals.
Please bear in mind that in no way this proposal is complete yet. It depends on a lot of factors, and quite important "details" have to be discussed yet. Such as the area's on which the Volunteer Council (I prefer this name over the very vague Wikicouncil) has authority, and more importantly, on which not. (Just like it has been determined in the staff/board/ed relationship)
OK, I give a great hug and a virtual stroopwafel and package of vla to every one that has read up to this very end, because again this email is too long. Sorry for it.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/1/5, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
I can immediately say that I should not have used the term parliament, because it clearly represent different things for people :-)
In my country, which is a democratic state amha, the Parliament absolutely NOT hires and fires government. God forbid ! The Government is headed by the president. The president is elected by the citizen, by direct voting system. Once the president is elected, he select his government. And the president can also fire and replace the entire government. That's his job. The Parliament has nothing to say here.
I should have nuanced my wordings too I guess :)
The Parliament is also elected by citizens, by direct voting.
It may happen that the majority of the Parliament is on the right side. Whilst the President is on the left side.
I have no idea really what is the final authority in my country. Certainly NOT the Parliament. I would say the Cour Constitionnelle. Perhaps. In the USA, the Suprem Court ?
I think we might have a different idea of Final Authority. With me, the Final Authority is the one that can rebuild the whole thing from scratch without needing the cooperation of other bodies. I think that the parliament can do this, if with a broad majority maybe, by rewriting laws etc. But I am not enough introduced apperently to the French constitution, so let's leave it here. The main point is not the comparison, but the idea behind it and the relationships within the Foundation.
Whatever. I think you are hitting this point because you do not give enough granularity to the various roles we are considering. Right now, I do not consider the board a final authority in everything. Sure enough, it has probably the final authority in deciding whether to vote the budget of the organization or not. But the WMF board has no final authority to approve the budget of Wikimedia Deutschland. And the WMF board has no final authority to decide whether an article should be in that version or in another, unless it is threatened legally (host provider responsibility). It has no special authority to decide whether a bugger should be banned or not. It has no final authority to decide a person should be made sysop or not. It has no final authority when the community decides to have a wikimeet or to hold a wiki contest for the best article.
I do not count Wikimedia Germany as part of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a seperate organization, and as such it has it's own Final Authority. The German General Assemblee. I think that the Wikimedia Foundation does have a Final Authority over the projects, but that is very limited. as you indicated. But if the judge would have to decide, it would have to be the Foundation to make sure, it gets done. Either through OFFICE actions, either by pulling the switch in Tampa. And at the end, it is the Board of Trustees, who pulls the wires, the Board can set out policies for the projects as well to which they have to behave themselves. But please note the difference between the Final Authority (which makes mainly the large decisions) and the "local" authority. But the communities make the whole picture very complicated, because in the end, the communities currently elect the majority of the Board, so we could name them too as Final Authority etc. I prefer to look here at the Wikimedia Foundation as "organization" with it's official bodies (currently Board, Advisory Board, ED, Staff, Committees, Officers).
For your proposition below, I'll give it a couple of days of thinking.
Ant
BR, Lodewijk
I think we might have a different idea of Final Authority. With me, the Final Authority is the one that can rebuild the whole thing from scratch without needing the cooperation of other bodies. I think that the parliament can do this, if with a broad majority maybe, by rewriting laws etc. But I am not enough introduced apperently to the French constitution, so let's leave it here. The main point is not the comparison, but the idea behind it and the relationships within the Foundation.
In many jurisdictions, such a final authority doesn't exist. I'm not sure about France, but the US is very careful about "Separation of Powers", meaning there is no one person with absolute power over everything.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org