See comments in blue
----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:20:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
We have trouble gaining consensus when less than a dozen people are involved. What makes you think a massive organization like this will work? The British House of Lords at its peak had over 1200 members. The US House of Representatives has 435. Bills are still passed. As is done in other legislative bodies, the lions share of the work of the C.A. will occur in smaller subgroups. What job will it perform? What authority and power does it have? The Community Assembly will the unified voice of the Wikimedia Community. It would set community policy on a global scale and administer community processes. The exact powers given to it shall be determined by the community in its Charter. What makes it any different than any current list or page? 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. What about it addresses the problems with the Wikicouncil?
The Wikicouncil was too exclusive. The VC would have given power to a select few, not the many diverse members of the Community. Also no agreement could be reached for selecting members. This issue is rendered moot by the structure of the C.A.
-Dan
On May 11, 2008, at 9:11 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
The Wikimedia Community Assembly is a proposed leadership body for the Wikimedia Community. This proposal is is designed to be significantly more straightforward, inclusive, and less bureaucratic than the Wikicouncil or Community of the Wikimedian Projects. The impetus for this proposal is the void that currently exists in community governance. This gap is prohibitive to the full realization of the potential of the community as an asset to the Foundation. To address this gap, its most important task would providing a unified community voice to the Board and the world. In accordance with the principles of the open source movement, membership in the Assembly would be granted to any Wikimedian who requests it. By doing so, this would prevent this body from becoming a elitist cabal, by insuring that all are heard, not just a privileged few. To prevent this body from being dragged down by size, which does not allow for business to be conducted in an orderly and efficent fashion, subgroups (Committees/Commissions/ Working Groups/Task Forces) specializing in specific issues would be created. Any 5 members with a specific issue or topic would be able to create a subgroup to work on that issue or topic. Membership in these issue specific subgroups would be open to all, but if necessary due to size, another group might be formed. The Assembly would run according to a community written charter, that would be revised at least once every calendar year. Decisions of the Assembly would be made by consensus, as with most other Wikimedian projects.
Can I get some thoughts on this?
____________________________________________________________________________________ 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
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
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com
We have trouble gaining consensus when less than a dozen people are involved. What makes you think a massive organization like this will work? The British House of Lords at its peak had over 1200 members. The US House of Representatives has 435. Bills are still passed. As is done in other legislative bodies, the lions share of the work of the C.A. will occur in smaller subgroups.
Neither of these legislative bodies came into being without a lot of history. Their procedural rules took years to develop.
What job will it perform? What authority and power does it have? The Community Assembly will the unified voice of the Wikimedia Community. It would set community policy on a global scale and administer community processes. The exact powers given to it shall be determined by the community in its Charter.
Any such group becomes suspect when it begins by phrasing its mission in terms of authority and power. It's all very romantic to speak of a unified voice, but the unification has to happen first. Who drafts the community charter that is the basis for these powers?
What makes it any different than any current list or page? 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.
I agree that existing community leadership is somewhat nebulous. Still, there is more to leadership than just setting up an Assembly or Council; the community needs to develop a feeling of trust for that body.
What about it addresses the problems with the Wikicouncil?
The Wikicouncil was too exclusive. The VC would have given power to a select few, not the many diverse members of the Community. Also no agreement could be reached for selecting members. This issue is rendered moot by the structure of the C.A.
There was no question of power with the Wikicouncil. If it sought to impose its will without due consideration of community opinions it would accomplish nothing . I find the proposal to be naïve.
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
[...]
What job will it perform? What authority and power does it have? The Community Assembly will the unified voice of the Wikimedia Community. It would set community policy on a global scale and administer community processes. The exact powers given to it shall be determined by the community in its Charter.
Any such group becomes suspect when it begins by phrasing its mission in terms of authority and power. It's all very romantic to speak of a unified voice, but the unification has to happen first. Who drafts the community charter that is the basis for these powers? [...]
To me, the "unified voice" is not romantic, but frightening. I sincerely dislike the idea that some body might exist that will pass resolutions "in the name of the community": If there is a consensus in the community, there is no need to pass a resolution. If there is no consensus, there should not be a resolution at all.
To repeat my two questions I have posted some time ago with no answer yet:
1. How will any council, assembly or whatever further the foundation's mission? 2. What are the non-meta issues that the board has handled not as well as the council-, assembly- or whatever-to-be?
Tim
Tim Landscheidt wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
What job will it perform? What authority and power does it have? The Community Assembly will the unified voice of the Wikimedia Community. It would set community policy on a global scale and administer community processes. The exact powers given to it shall be determined by the community in its Charter.
Any such group becomes suspect when it begins by phrasing its mission in terms of authority and power. It's all very romantic to speak of a unified voice, but the unification has to happen first. Who drafts the community charter that is the basis for these powers?
To me, the "unified voice" is not romantic, but frightening. I sincerely dislike the idea that some body might exist that will pass resolutions "in the name of the community": If there is a consensus in the community, there is no need to pass a resolution. If there is no consensus, there should not be a resolution at all.
"Unified voice" can be either, depending on the way it's implemented. The kind of unified voice that prevails around some of the current en:wp processes is indeed frightening. It is romantic when a person believes that his solution alone will be the magic bullet that solves all these problems. The fallacious excluded middle in your syllogism relates to not knowing whether there is a consensus. It is impossible to know about the consensus before you know the resolution.
I can't speak for Geoffrey's assembly, but there has been no statement from the Council that it will pass resolutions "in the name of the community". It could pass resolutions in its own name, but unless it can garner wider community support those resolutions will go no further.
To repeat my two questions I have posted some time ago with no answer yet:
- How will any council, assembly or whatever further the foundation's mission?
This trick question depends on how you interpret the foundation's mission. As long as the foundation's mission is based on dominant paternalism it can't further such a mission.
- What are the non-meta issues that the board has handled not as well as the council-, assembly- or whatever-to-be?
What do YOU mean by "non-meta issues"? Clearly, a statement about what the Board has handled "not as well", is completely speculative in the absence of a council or other body. It is nevertheless clear the the Trustees are limited in number, and are thus limited in the tasks they can undertake. The risk is also that a deep involvement in community editing processes could compromise the protections and defences that it can claim as an ISP.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org