First, the Board sent the ball on Wikicouncil back to the Community, then the Board made community elected seats a minority. Because of our principles, we attract a lot of people who are suspicious of authoritarian structures. This move seems kind of authoritarian.
----- Original Message ---- From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:50:40 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
Yes, that's clear and evident from the discussion.
The question is - Why?
The reaction is out of proportion to the proposal.
-george william herbert
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
People are afraid that the Board is forgetting why it exists.
----- Original Message ---- From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:19:02 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
I am somewhat perturbed by the reaction here.
Perhaps this was not the best approach for the Board to restructure its membership, but to leap from that to the assumed bad faith a number of participants here have expressed is highly disturbing.
This has not been an episode of healthy skepticism. I assume that everyone has the overall projects' best interests in mind, but the level of distrust is disturbing, and does not evidently stem primarily or originally from the actual chapters select two of the board members proposal.
Why has this been simmering off in the wings? What are people actually upset about?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/4/29 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
First, the Board sent the ball on Wikicouncil back to the Community, then the Board made community elected seats a minority.
? It was not exactly clear that the Wikicouncil concept *as presented to the Board at that time* was something that was supported by "the Community" at large. They have expressed support for the concept, but not that particular instantiation. I am sure that if they had accepted it there would probably be *more* outrage! (possibly directed slightly differently)
Secondly seats for community members are still a majority: 5 + Jimmy. If a vote goes 5-5, it fails. So there is no "power bloc of outsiders". If you are really concerned that "the chapters" are going to somehow choose the wrong people, then why not pipe up with suggestions about what "the right way" would be.
Because of our principles, we attract a lot of people who are suspicious of authoritarian structures. This move seems kind of authoritarian.
Yeah, so getting outraged by default - regardless of the merit of a proposal - is definitely a good move!
Put it this way, throwing a hissy fit is not a good argument that the community should have more input. We should demonstrate we deserve more input by making that input reasoned and sensible.
Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.
regards Brianna
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.
I am not happy to see it have come as a surprise and think it would been much better the community have been asked for opinion before hearing "here is our new resolution, we announce so-and-so".
Jan-Bart announced and made a brief comment on IRC (on the list later perhaps?) Florence has apologized on the list. Domas commented, even if it rather sounds sarcastic and replies only to a particular sarcastic reaction. But still, more input will be appreciated.
I'd love to hear other Board members' inputs too. I don't feel betrayed but feel lack of communications, and very concerned about that. Also I feel I need to give more thought on this issue to say something, thereforee not in a mood of blessing at that moment. I think at least I need more input to consider its meaning and possibilities.
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.
Actually in fact it would be untrue to say that personally I was dissapointed by the surprise nature of the announcement. I was not, nor am I yet. To my mind there is quite some virtue for even a board to be bold and act decisively.
What *I* think is the real short-coming in this instance, is that the decision did not come with more information on who were the people who *had* the boldness to so act, and what their reasoning was, and what the alternatives considered were, and who were their proponents on the board.
The way this was done suggests that individuals on the board are plenty bold to act, when they don't have to individually own up to acting, and share their thoughts behind the acts publically.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Brianna Laugher wrote:
2008/4/29 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
First, the Board sent the ball on Wikicouncil back to the Community, then the Board made community elected seats a minority.
? It was not exactly clear that the Wikicouncil concept *as presented to the Board at that time* was something that was supported by "the Community" at large. They have expressed support for the concept, but not that particular instantiation. I am sure that if they had accepted it there would probably be *more* outrage! (possibly directed slightly differently)
The Wikicouncil concept presented to the Board was never in any way an absolutely take-it-or-leave-it final format. There were bound to be differences of opinion on some of the details. Having a provisional body would have given an opportunity to sort out the differences with the Board and develop community credibility between now and the fall.
Secondly seats for community members are still a majority: 5 + Jimmy. If a vote goes 5-5, it fails. So there is no "power bloc of outsiders". If you are really concerned that "the chapters" are going to somehow choose the wrong people, then why not pipe up with suggestions about what "the right way" would be.
I realize that the prevailing spin is that the chapter seats are community seats, but in the absence of the chapters themselves having worked out a viable plan the spin is based purely on speculation.
Put it this way, throwing a hissy fit is not a good argument that the community should have more input. We should demonstrate we deserve more input by making that input reasoned and sensible.
That's the intent of the VC.
Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.
Of the Board members, Florence is probably the one with the least reason to apologize.
Ec
2008/4/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Secondly seats for community members are still a majority: 5 + Jimmy. If a vote goes 5-5, it fails. So there is no "power bloc of outsiders". If you are really concerned that "the chapters" are going to somehow choose the wrong people, then why not pipe up with suggestions about what "the right way" would be.
I realize that the prevailing spin is that the chapter seats are community seats, but in the absence of the chapters themselves having worked out a viable plan the spin is based purely on speculation.
OR: in the absence of the chapters themselves having (had a chance to) work out a viable plan, this is a great opportunity for everyone to provide suggestions to them about the ways they might go about it...
A few comments I have read have been as if the chapters seats are a fait accompli, doomed, when in fact I see this is a great *opportunity* for people to help guide the process to something they are happy with.
Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
2008/4/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Secondly seats for community members are still a majority: 5 + Jimmy. If a vote goes 5-5, it fails. So there is no "power bloc of outsiders". If you are really concerned that "the chapters" are going to somehow choose the wrong people, then why not pipe up with suggestions about what "the right way" would be.
I realize that the prevailing spin is that the chapter seats are community seats, but in the absence of the chapters themselves having worked out a viable plan the spin is based purely on speculation.
OR: in the absence of the chapters themselves having (had a chance to) work out a viable plan, this is a great opportunity for everyone to provide suggestions to them about the ways they might go about it...
A few comments I have read have been as if the chapters seats are a fait accompli, doomed, when in fact I see this is a great *opportunity* for people to help guide the process to something they are happy with.
Brianna
<sly smirk>
How about the chapters institute an exploratory body to ponder this very question...
They could call that body... let me see now... what should they call such a body?
I know!
Why not call it a "Community Volunteer Council for Electoral Exploration"
CVCEE
<broad grin>
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
<sly smirk>
How about the chapters institute an exploratory body to ponder this very question...
They could call that body... let me see now... what should they call such a body?
I know!
Why not call it a "Community Volunteer Council for Electoral Exploration"
CVCEE
<broad grin>
Very good, both in seriousness and in jest. While I would be happy if the organizers of the Volunteer Council proposal feel a need to continue working on a wiki-council, if they prefer to redirect their energies and assist the chapters with the task ahead, that would also be a fine contribution to make.
--Michael Snow
Brianna Laugher wrote:
A few comments I have read have been as if the chapters seats are a fait accompli, doomed, when in fact I see this is a great *opportunity* for people to help guide the process to something they are happy with.
Yay Brianna!
--Jimbo
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/29 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
I realize that the prevailing spin is that the chapter seats are community seats, but in the absence of the chapters themselves having worked out a viable plan the spin is based purely on speculation.
OR: in the absence of the chapters themselves having (had a chance to) work out a viable plan, this is a great opportunity for everyone to provide suggestions to them about the ways they might go about it...
A few comments I have read have been as if the chapters seats are a fait accompli, doomed, when in fact I see this is a great *opportunity* for people to help guide the process to something they are happy with.
Enfin un peu de douceur dans un monde de brutes. Merci.
Delphine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org