I think it is very much fair to say that concerns of the ordinary
membership about representation were not taken into adequate account,
when they are not discussed openly and lead to a major loss of
representation of the ordinary membership.
The board is doing what executive committees of all sorts regularly
do, which is to assume that it can best judge for everyone else. Not
surprisingly, that judgement almost always leads to the loss of
representation from elected members, who would represent everybody
else. tI's discouraging to see the gradual decline in the role of
the people who do the ordinary work at Wikipedia, in contrast to those
who seem to be running it.
FWIW, Citizendium selects its governing committee by asking which of
the frequent contributors above a fixed cutoff in participation want
to be on it, and then choosing by lot. That's a very primitive form of
democracy, but its better than self-perpetuating boards with the power
to change their own constitutions to suit themselves.
A majority of the members of the board should be directly elected
without special representation. The inclusion of the different
geographical areas has proven itself to be sufficient without special
chapter seats chosen by not-yet specified means. And the usual way
to provide sufficient input in special areas is not by private
appointment, but consultants. WP is becoming an explicitly top-down
hierarchy; the informal organization in that direction is unfortunate
enough (though inevitable), without enshrining it.
I challenge the board to put its suggestion up for a open plebiscite.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
(Resent with corrected subject header and attribution
-- apologies for
my errors.)
Thomas Dalton writes:
I
don't this characterization is entirely fair, Lodewijk. The
opinions
of the community and the chapters about governance of the Foundation
and its projects, as expressed here in foundation-l and elsewhere,
were weighed heavily in the course of the Board's consideration of
its
governance issues.
It can't of been. There's been very little (if any) discussion about
chapters appointing board members, since the idea never really came up
(it may have been mentioned in passing once or twice). If the board
wanted our opinions, they would have had to ask for them.
I think it's an error to infer, simply because the particulars of the
Board restructuring were not vetted through you, that chapter and
community concerns did not weigh heavily on the Board as it considered
all the goals it was attempting to meet through restructuring. I can
assure you that your general comments and feedback here and elsewhere
figured prominently in the Board's consideration of these issues.
--Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG