Alison writes:
Setting aside for the moment my concerns that Erik is writing opinions here now that he has been appointed DepED, a clear conflict of involvement if not of interest ...
In my own experience of nonprofits, it has not been considered problematic for staff members to express opinions on matters of policy, including organizational governance. At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and at Public Knowledge -- the three nonprofits I worked at before coming to Wikimedia Foundation -- it was considered a benefit, and not a conflict, for staff members to offer input about how they believed the organizations should run. I would hate it if we felt we had to depart from that tradition here.
So, my belief is not only that it isn't a problem for Erik to offer his opinion, but also that it's a sign of organizational health that he can do so. I also think that it helps the community to hear how staff members think about such issues -- certainly more helpful than if the staff feels compelled to keep quiet about them. (It's also helpful to staff to hear where the community disagrees with staff opinions -- but we can't know when such disagreements occur unless staff are free to offer opinions.)
I hope my own opinion is taken in the spirit in which it's offered!
--Mike
On 12/30/07, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
In my own experience of nonprofits, it has not been considered problematic for staff members to express opinions on matters of policy, including organizational governance. At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and at Public Knowledge -- the three nonprofits I worked at before coming to Wikimedia Foundation -- it was considered a benefit, and not a conflict, for staff members to offer input about how they believed the organizations should run. I would hate it if we felt we had to depart from that tradition here.
To add to this: Either we have an open discussion or we don't. A situation where Board members are able to comment freely on every issue under the sun while staff members are heavily constrained does not strike me as equitable or desirable, especially given that this would lead to an over-representation of points of view from wiki volunteers and an under-representation of legal, financial, technical, and other perspectives -- under the current constitution of the Board.
My preferred approach would be one where we have open debates that are clearly contextualized as such, and otherwise present a united front: Board and Staff pulling together for a shared vision.
Best, Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/30/07, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
In my own experience of nonprofits, it has not been considered problematic for staff members to express opinions on matters of policy, including organizational governance. At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and at Public Knowledge -- the three nonprofits I worked at before coming to Wikimedia Foundation -- it was considered a benefit, and not a conflict, for staff members to offer input about how they believed the organizations should run. I would hate it if we felt we had to depart from that tradition here.
To add to this: Either we have an open discussion or we don't. A situation where Board members are able to comment freely on every issue under the sun while staff members are heavily constrained does not strike me as equitable or desirable,
I, for one, am glad to see you write this Erik :-)
So... I take it you support board members having the right to comment and debate publicly on every issue under the sun.
I am happy to read that, because my experience is quite the opposite. In the recent events, I felt that my right to comment has been severely restricted in many occasions. And still is.
If equity is that staff is free to give opinions on board realm, then board is also free to give opinions on staff realm.
especially given that this
would lead to an over-representation of points of view from wiki volunteers and an under-representation of legal, financial, technical, and other perspectives -- under the current constitution of the Board.
My preferred approach would be one where we have open debates that are clearly contextualized as such, and otherwise present a united front: Board and Staff pulling together for a shared vision.
The problem being when board and staff unfortunately do NOT have a shared vision.
There is an inconsistency here: how do you suggest that we have open debates, whilst at the same time presenting a shared vision ?
Also, you suggested yesterday that Staff should make strategic decisions (such as changing our project licence) and today suggest that Staff's vision is also to take into account. I'd like you to explain to me what the role of the staff is, and where the role of the board is in a situation where staff holds the vision and defines the strategy ?
Ant
On 12/30/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So... I take it you support board members having the right to comment and debate publicly on every issue under the sun.
As I said, my preference is to contextualize open debates as such: Implicitly, by asking for opinions on foundation-l and other public lists, and/or explicitly, by labeling them as such. And an open debate should be just that.
Outside the scope of an open debate, we should be more careful and judicious when commenting: because we are agents of the Foundation, whether as Board or Staff members, and because constant public dissonance would make it more difficult to execute decisions.
So, to me there is a difference between an open discussion about a Wikicouncil, or about the fundraiser, or about offline reader technology, and an announcement of a decision that is contradicted by individual Board members, or the people who are supposed to implement it; there is a difference between an open discussion about hiring policies, and sticking to an established communications framework for something like the Carolyn Doran incident.
Obviously there will be borderline cases, but I'd much rather at least have some basic structure to start with.
There is an inconsistency here: how do you suggest that we have open debates, whilst at the same time presenting a shared vision ?
For this, too, we need to establish structures and processes. What is the Board's role in defining the strategy of the Foundation? Different non-profits have answered this very differently: The scope ranges from non-profits with huge volunteer Boards that want to get involved in every operational detail, to those with small hands-off Boards that merely give their ED a thumbs up 2-4 times per year.
The best practice for us is probably somewhere in the middle. For the organization with strong Board involvement, it typically becomes a problem to find competent staff members. The kind of ED who can make the trains runs on time is also the kind of ED who wants a certain amount of influence over the vision, and a certain amount of freedom to implement it: if you want skills, you also have to grant freedoms. And of course, the more people are involved in strategy-making, the more likely it becomes that a consistent strategy cannot form at all, and that there is a constant back and forth between several internal forces.
Our situation is complicated by the fact that the Board doesn't just exist in the Board room: It's a permanent presence on mailing lists, IRC, and so on, to some extent even more so than the staff. And of course the Board is the ED's boss, and by extension, positioned higher than any single staff member.
In a worst case scenario, we end up with confused staff receiving direction from multiple places, with mixed messaging, with a strategy that is constantly being called into question. In a best case scenario, everyone knows and understands their role, and conflicts and tensions arise only infrequently and, preferably, privately.
Here are some parameters that could be the basis of an alternative framework. I'm not saying these exact parameters are the ones we should use, but they could be a starting point:
* The Board meets, online or in person, four times a year. Beyond emergency decisions and unusual situations like the absence of an ED, it is within the scope of these meetings that the Board should exercise its high-level decision-making power. * The Board can define high-level goals such as http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/4_wishes_for_year_2007 ; these could also include more specific high level goals such as "achieve greater licensing compatibility" or "ensure that our projects are in compliance with the principles of free content". This would be my preference based on the experience e.g. with the licensing reform. * The ED and staff will typically be responsible for preparing a more detailed roadmap which will be approved by the Board, with some feedback and refinements during the Board meetings. * Outside the scope of Board meetings, the Board and Staff would be permitted to begin open debates on a topic, if clearly contextualized as such. The Chair and ED would typically initiate higher level debates ("Should we have a Wikicouncil", "What is the role of the Board", "How should we allocate our resources"), while staff members would do so within their domain expertise.
Staff and Board members are equally free to comment in such debates, keeping in mind the obvious constraints such as previous agreements of confidentiality, no personal attacks, etc. Comments are understood to be personal opinions, not policy.
Beyond open debates, both Board & Staff members have to be more judicious when commenting, and should generally try to follow agreed upon lines of communication or comment within their area of expertise (e.g. to answer a community question).
This is under the assumption that there is no Wikicouncil. In my opinion, a Wikicouncil - if it is to make matters better, not worse - needs to literally assume some responsibilities currently handled by the Board, rather than merely being an extension to the Board's community members. That is, to the extent that the Board currently makes decisions which have a high community impact, the Wikicouncil could make at least some of them in the future.
Where significant domain expertise is required, my preference is for the council or its committees (if it does create committees) to function in a consultative, rather than a policymaking role: simply because an elected body is not going to accumulate through processes of candidate election all the expertise necessary to actually make fully informed decisions, and because it lacks the agility (quickness) to acquire that expertise externally.
So, in a three-body system, a process like the licensing reform could have worked as follows:
* The Board defines greater compatibility between free content repositories as a goal. * The ED creates a workgroup of staff & volunteers to implement this goal. It consults with Wikicouncil, Board, Advisory Board & wider community members as it deems useful. * The final decision to implement a particular license on Wikimedia projects is approved by the Wikicouncil.
From the comments by Erik and Florence, it seems like the overall role
of the ED is still up in the air from the point of view of the staff and Board. The role of the ED (particularly when you are talking, as Erik is, about defining areas of expertise and ownership of strategic vision) is something that should be established *before* you hire an ED and a deputy, because before you decide how do you know what you want?
I'm glad that Erik is invested enough in these changes to write pages of comprehensive proposals, but I think it makes it difficult for a thorough review. I'd suggest you isolate different areas and review them separately first - i.e. a Wikicouncil and the role of the board, the role of the staff vs. the Board in an open debate, the purview of the ED etc. as individual items for consideration.
I'd also like to point out that the byplay is something I at least miss, and it detracts (in my view) from a meaningful debate. I'm speaking to the inside-speak between Danny, Florence and Erik in this case - particularly where Florence alludes that constraints have been imposed on her ability to express her opinion openly, which is hard to imagine or justify as she is Chair of the Board.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
From the comments by Erik and Florence, it seems like the overall role of the ED is still up in the air from the point of view of the staff and Board. The role of the ED (particularly when you are talking, as Erik is, about defining areas of expertise and ownership of strategic vision) is something that should be established *before* you hire an ED and a deputy, because before you decide how do you know what you want?
Not really.
First, the deputy role is defined by the ED. So, not under control of the board. That's up to Sue. I am not aware of any disagreement over the deputy job description itself.
As for the description of the role of the ED, I do not think there is a lot of major disagreement really. There is disagreement perhaps on the extent of the freedom we should allocate. But ultimately, as the bylaws make it very clear, "All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the Foundation shall be managed under, the direction of the Board of Trustees."
Erik is possibly defending a position where the ED would apparently be given full authority, which is not compatible with the bylaws.
Now, Erik might disagree with this, but given that he is neither ED, nor board member... I really appreciate his feedback and his thoughts, as always. As I do appreciate any of you feedback and thoughts. And am really happy of this healthy discussion.
I'm glad that Erik is invested enough in these changes to write pages of comprehensive proposals, but I think it makes it difficult for a thorough review. I'd suggest you isolate different areas and review them separately first - i.e. a Wikicouncil and the role of the board, the role of the staff vs. the Board in an open debate, the purview of the ED etc. as individual items for consideration.
I'd also like to point out that the byplay is something I at least miss, and it detracts (in my view) from a meaningful debate. I'm speaking to the inside-speak between Danny, Florence and Erik in this case - particularly where Florence alludes that constraints have been imposed on her ability to express her opinion openly, which is hard to imagine or justify as she is Chair of the Board.
Nathan
I agree it seems hard to justify. Does not make it less real :-(
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 12/30/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So... I take it you support board members having the right to comment and debate publicly on every issue under the sun.
As I said, my preference is to contextualize open debates as such: Implicitly, by asking for opinions on foundation-l and other public lists, and/or explicitly, by labeling them as such. And an open debate should be just that.
Outside the scope of an open debate, we should be more careful and judicious when commenting: because we are agents of the Foundation, whether as Board or Staff members, and because constant public dissonance would make it more difficult to execute decisions.
So, to me there is a difference between an open discussion about a Wikicouncil, or about the fundraiser, or about offline reader technology, and an announcement of a decision that is contradicted by individual Board members, or the people who are supposed to implement it; there is a difference between an open discussion about hiring policies, and sticking to an established communications framework for something like the Carolyn Doran incident.
Obviously there will be borderline cases, but I'd much rather at least have some basic structure to start with.
There is an inconsistency here: how do you suggest that we have open debates, whilst at the same time presenting a shared vision ?
For this, too, we need to establish structures and processes. What is the Board's role in defining the strategy of the Foundation? Different non-profits have answered this very differently: The scope ranges from non-profits with huge volunteer Boards that want to get involved in every operational detail, to those with small hands-off Boards that merely give their ED a thumbs up 2-4 times per year.
The best practice for us is probably somewhere in the middle. For the organization with strong Board involvement, it typically becomes a problem to find competent staff members. The kind of ED who can make the trains runs on time is also the kind of ED who wants a certain amount of influence over the vision, and a certain amount of freedom to implement it: if you want skills, you also have to grant freedoms. And of course, the more people are involved in strategy-making, the more likely it becomes that a consistent strategy cannot form at all, and that there is a constant back and forth between several internal forces.
Our situation is complicated by the fact that the Board doesn't just exist in the Board room: It's a permanent presence on mailing lists, IRC, and so on, to some extent even more so than the staff. And of course the Board is the ED's boss, and by extension, positioned higher than any single staff member.
In a worst case scenario, we end up with confused staff receiving direction from multiple places, with mixed messaging, with a strategy that is constantly being called into question. In a best case scenario, everyone knows and understands their role, and conflicts and tensions arise only infrequently and, preferably, privately.
Here are some parameters that could be the basis of an alternative framework. I'm not saying these exact parameters are the ones we should use, but they could be a starting point:
- The Board meets, online or in person, four times a year. Beyond
emergency decisions and unusual situations like the absence of an ED, it is within the scope of these meetings that the Board should exercise its high-level decision-making power.
- The Board can define high-level goals such as
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/4_wishes_for_year_2007 ; these could also include more specific high level goals such as "achieve greater licensing compatibility" or "ensure that our projects are in compliance with the principles of free content". This would be my preference based on the experience e.g. with the licensing reform.
- The ED and staff will typically be responsible for preparing a more
detailed roadmap which will be approved by the Board, with some feedback and refinements during the Board meetings.
- Outside the scope of Board meetings, the Board and Staff would be
permitted to begin open debates on a topic, if clearly contextualized as such. The Chair and ED would typically initiate higher level debates ("Should we have a Wikicouncil", "What is the role of the Board", "How should we allocate our resources"), while staff members would do so within their domain expertise.
Staff and Board members are equally free to comment in such debates, keeping in mind the obvious constraints such as previous agreements of confidentiality, no personal attacks, etc. Comments are understood to be personal opinions, not policy.
Beyond open debates, both Board & Staff members have to be more judicious when commenting, and should generally try to follow agreed upon lines of communication or comment within their area of expertise (e.g. to answer a community question).
This is under the assumption that there is no Wikicouncil. In my opinion, a Wikicouncil - if it is to make matters better, not worse - needs to literally assume some responsibilities currently handled by the Board, rather than merely being an extension to the Board's community members. That is, to the extent that the Board currently makes decisions which have a high community impact, the Wikicouncil could make at least some of them in the future.
Where significant domain expertise is required, my preference is for the council or its committees (if it does create committees) to function in a consultative, rather than a policymaking role: simply because an elected body is not going to accumulate through processes of candidate election all the expertise necessary to actually make fully informed decisions, and because it lacks the agility (quickness) to acquire that expertise externally.
So, in a three-body system, a process like the licensing reform could have worked as follows:
- The Board defines greater compatibility between free content
repositories as a goal.
- The ED creates a workgroup of staff & volunteers to implement this
goal. It consults with Wikicouncil, Board, Advisory Board & wider community members as it deems useful.
- The final decision to implement a particular license on Wikimedia
projects is approved by the Wikicouncil.
More or less agree on the description of the process, hinting that the proposition you make below, does not reflect your original suggestion
For memory
Should a decision like the licensing reform have been made by - the Board - the Executive Director in consultation with her staff - a Wikicouncil - the entire community?
I think that question should be open to debate -- and to me the answer could very well be, in future: "The ED in consultation with staff, experts, and Wikicouncil members" or "The community through a project-wide vote".
In the original suggestion, the ED was making the decision; in the new suggestion, the wikicouncil is; and note that this procedure fits pretty well what we are currently doing. The board passed a first resolution, defining greater compatibility as a goal. Erik, as near staff, is actively trying to find the best solution for all. And the community will be asked its input.
The critical part right now is "how to get this community feedback? ". In the near impossibility to hold a global vote (referendum system), a wikicouncil seems a good solution.
----------
Let me suggest another example, which I think is currently a bit broken: board membership. Beyond the issue of expertise, the board has expressed, strongly, in the past, its desire to have a majority of community members on the board.
First problem: who can be defined as a community member ? What is community ? We worked on that problem a year ago during the chapter meeting and no satisfactory solution was found.
Second problem: the board must find a balance between 1) having skilled professionals on the board, 2) making sure the foundation is not taken over by outsiders who will lessen the community input and 3) avoiding elections being merely a popularity contest. As a reaction, the board may have as a tendency to be overprotecting and self-appointing, thus preventing the community to throw a revolution if things go really wrong.
Right now, the board is the one deciding who may be eligeable to be candidate. I do not think the board should do that. My suggestion (for elections) would be
1) The board defines the number of board members (eg, 11), and basic rules to respect to be on the board (eg, over 18; eg, no felony in the USA 2) The board defines the number of seats which will be elected, versus the number of seats to be appointed, as well as duration of each seats, renewal rules etc... 3) The wikicouncil defines the rules of eligeability for being a candidate and the rules of eligeability for voting, and establish, in agreeement with the board, the replacement rules in case of vacancy 4) Ed and staff implement the elections
In this case, the board stays high level in his definition of who could be elected as community representative; and merely indicate his desire to have at least xx members from the community.
And the wikicouncil, being made of representants of the community, is the one in charge of defining who is actually legible to be a community representative on the board.
Note that in this case, the wikicouncil is deciding if elections should be direct or indirect, if Jimbo is really a community member or not, if the pope is allowed to vote or not. Rules being flexible.
ant
on 12/30/07 11:46 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
First problem: who can be defined as a community member ? What is community ? We worked on that problem a year ago during the chapter meeting and no satisfactory solution was found.
Florence,
This is a rather critical question here in the Project. References to "Community", "the Community", "Community Member(s)", etc., are made nearly every day throughout the various communications. When you worked on the problem a year ago, what was the final conclusion as to a definition of "Community" as relates to the Projects?
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 12/30/07 11:46 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip> > First problem: who can be defined as a community member ? What is > community ? We worked on that problem a year ago during the chapter > meeting and no satisfactory solution was found. > Florence,
This is a rather critical question here in the Project. References to "Community", "the Community", "Community Member(s)", etc., are made nearly every day throughout the various communications. When you worked on the problem a year ago, what was the final conclusion as to a definition of "Community" as relates to the Projects?
Marc Riddell
Unfortunately, not satisfying answer. Community is too amorphous a concept.
In its largest meaning, community is "human population". The people we are working to create content for.
Some, in particular with regards to elections, consider that "community" is "every person interested in what we are doing". This will be a reason why some will consider that Larry Lessig, though not a participant of our projects, though not knowing anything of our internal workings, is a community member.
A more restricted definition will be "every person involved in what we are doing". That will involve editors, but also our developers for example. Note that some members of our internal community belong to this group, though they have hardly ever be editors; we would nevertheless consider them as "part of the community". Note that this definition is not the one followed by current elections (people who are developers, and have hardly ever edited do not have the right to vote). I consider more or less this definition as being the definition of "the organization community".
An even more restricted definition is "those who have at least xxx edits on one of our projects". This is the current election definition for voters.
Of course, even the more restricted definition of community allow further division. There is the Wikipedia community, the Wiktionary community, the Wikibooks community (the first being dominant but the other ones fighting for their recognition and the recognition of their own specificities, which is good). Then, there is the english community, french community, japanese community. And every mix we could imagine, english wikipedia, german wikibooks, spanish wiktionary.
I'll be happy to add there the mediawiki community, overlapping largely with all others.
And it would be fair to say that there are two other communities, which to the contrary of ALL others, are closed and very little flexible. The internal community, and the comcom community.
And I think I can not leave aside the chapter communities, which is also a group of sort.
I probably forget a couple of communities...
The meeting in oct 06 was unable to decide what "community" was, because it is simply impossible. However, I thought we should have tried to work on the definition of "community" meaning with regards to representativity.
--------
The current situation at the board level is broken, because we stated that "we want a majority coming from community" (through elections or appointement), but without defining what community is.
So, current situation is that for example, some are arguing that Jan-Bart is not from the community; but others are arguing that he is from the community. Both statements are correct, depending on the definition. For JB, it is probably very hurting to tell him "you are an outsider", however, he has never put his hands in the practical job.
For example, some are arguing that Jimbo is not a community member, whilst Jimbo argues that he is. He knows some of our communities, but it would be fair to argue that he always had a special position, and as such, can hardly represent those with no special position.
For example, some argue that Larry Lessig is a community member, whilst most do not. Larry knows part of the free world, does that mean he could represent the editors or developers playing with the clay every day ?
---------
What I would love seeing is a rather more granular definition of community, without going radical. By and large, there is * the editing community, and I would suggest breaking it down by projects, then perhaps by languages if necessary * the developer community * the chapter community
Each of these three communities would have a certain number of seats reserved on the board, each seat being clearly labelled as "representing the 1) editors, or 2) developers and 3) chapter, communities".
It is up to these three communities to decide how they want to select their representative. I would freely suggest chapters could do so by direct vote of all chapter members; it would make wonder to push chapters to get a common voice. I would freely suggest developers could do so by direct vote of all developer members; with "eligeability" to vote being "have submitted at least xx number of accepted patches, or whatever allow them to recognize real developers from jerks". I would freely suggest editing community to think of moving toward indirect vote, thought the wikicouncil.
All this draw a picture of three main communities. * Those editing the projects * Those helping through technical maintenance or software improvement * Those facilitating content development, distribution and lobbying, through legal structures (wikimedia chapters)
----------
We could imagine 6 seats being reserved for these three communities. Such as 1 for developer, 2 for chapters and 3 for editors.
That would let 5 seats. Which could be filled up directly by board itself through appointment, or be filled up by a nominating committee, if there is such thing one day.
----------
I nearly forgot, Marc, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_retreat
Ant
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 12/30/07 11:46 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip> > First problem: who can be defined as a community member ? What is > community ? We worked on that problem a year ago during the chapter > meeting and no satisfactory solution was found. > Florence,
This is a rather critical question here in the Project. References to "Community", "the Community", "Community Member(s)", etc., are made nearly every day throughout the various communications. When you worked on the problem a year ago, what was the final conclusion as to a definition of "Community" as relates to the Projects?
Marc Riddell
on 12/31/07 6:26 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Unfortunately, not satisfying answer. Community is too amorphous a concept.
In its largest meaning, community is "human population". The people we are working to create content for.
Some, in particular with regards to elections, consider that "community" is "every person interested in what we are doing". This will be a reason why some will consider that Larry Lessig, though not a participant of our projects, though not knowing anything of our internal workings, is a community member.
A more restricted definition will be "every person involved in what we are doing". That will involve editors, but also our developers for example. Note that some members of our internal community belong to this group, though they have hardly ever be editors; we would nevertheless consider them as "part of the community". Note that this definition is not the one followed by current elections (people who are developers, and have hardly ever edited do not have the right to vote). I consider more or less this definition as being the definition of "the organization community".
An even more restricted definition is "those who have at least xxx edits on one of our projects". This is the current election definition for voters.
Of course, even the more restricted definition of community allow further division. There is the Wikipedia community, the Wiktionary community, the Wikibooks community (the first being dominant but the other ones fighting for their recognition and the recognition of their own specificities, which is good). Then, there is the english community, french community, japanese community. And every mix we could imagine, english wikipedia, german wikibooks, spanish wiktionary.
I'll be happy to add there the mediawiki community, overlapping largely with all others.
And it would be fair to say that there are two other communities, which to the contrary of ALL others, are closed and very little flexible. The internal community, and the comcom community.
And I think I can not leave aside the chapter communities, which is also a group of sort.
I probably forget a couple of communities...
The meeting in oct 06 was unable to decide what "community" was, because it is simply impossible. However, I thought we should have tried to work on the definition of "community" meaning with regards to representativity.
The current situation at the board level is broken, because we stated that "we want a majority coming from community" (through elections or appointement), but without defining what community is.
So, current situation is that for example, some are arguing that Jan-Bart is not from the community; but others are arguing that he is from the community. Both statements are correct, depending on the definition. For JB, it is probably very hurting to tell him "you are an outsider", however, he has never put his hands in the practical job.
For example, some are arguing that Jimbo is not a community member, whilst Jimbo argues that he is. He knows some of our communities, but it would be fair to argue that he always had a special position, and as such, can hardly represent those with no special position.
For example, some argue that Larry Lessig is a community member, whilst most do not. Larry knows part of the free world, does that mean he could represent the editors or developers playing with the clay every day ?
What I would love seeing is a rather more granular definition of community, without going radical. By and large, there is
- the editing community, and I would suggest breaking it down by
projects, then perhaps by languages if necessary
- the developer community
- the chapter community
Each of these three communities would have a certain number of seats reserved on the board, each seat being clearly labelled as "representing the 1) editors, or 2) developers and 3) chapter, communities".
It is up to these three communities to decide how they want to select their representative. I would freely suggest chapters could do so by direct vote of all chapter members; it would make wonder to push chapters to get a common voice. I would freely suggest developers could do so by direct vote of all developer members; with "eligeability" to vote being "have submitted at least xx number of accepted patches, or whatever allow them to recognize real developers from jerks". I would freely suggest editing community to think of moving toward indirect vote, thought the wikicouncil.
All this draw a picture of three main communities.
- Those editing the projects
- Those helping through technical maintenance or software improvement
- Those facilitating content development, distribution and lobbying,
through legal structures (wikimedia chapters)
We could imagine 6 seats being reserved for these three communities. Such as 1 for developer, 2 for chapters and 3 for editors.
That would let 5 seats. Which could be filled up directly by board itself through appointment, or be filled up by a nominating committee, if there is such thing one day.
Thank you very much for this, Florence. This is the most precise, well-articulated description of the various aspects of "community" as it applies to the Wikipedia Project I have seen to date.
Where your thoughts run in the practical direction of the concept of Community (voting & other decision-making areas) mine runs in a more intangible one: Anyone who contributes in a positive way to advance the values and goals of the Project.
Until recently, when I spoke of "The Wikipedia Community", I had been thinking, according to your breakdown above, specifically of the body of persons who actually edit the encyclopedia. And my goals have been to want this Community of persons to be regarded with dignity, respect and trust. For them to have a reasonable voice in the workings of the Project's administration and decision-making processes. And for them to have some semblance of control over their own fates within the Project.
This respect and trust must, of course, work both ways - We must earn it from each other.
I'm really just brainstorming without an umbrella here:
What I'm going for is more of a sense of community than a fact of community. A sense of belonging and loyalty that can be instilled and held only though the culture. It can begin by each person being honest and asking themselves what they are doing here and why.
One outstanding positive effect this sense of community pride would have on the Project itself is that persons are less likely to freely abuse a group they truly feel they are a part of. Would you burn down your house if you still felt it was your home?
A person who feels they have been valued by a community is less likely to abuse or harm it, or its members, if they feel they are still a part of it.
There needs to be a civility initiative in the Project that is reflected in every interaction. People need to compliment each other more, and cut each other some slack when they take risks and make some mistakes.
Take care of the new members of the Community, and remember they are learning about the culture with every new encounter and interaction.
Also, there could be something similar to a barnstar that we place on our User Pages ourselves saying something like "I am a proud Member of the Wikipedia Community" with a design such as a Globe similar to the WP Globe, but with a figure of a person at the N, S, E & W locations.
I would like to see placed at the top of the Wikipedia Main Page, a banner that says something like, "Be honest - be fair - be assertive, be civil."
Wikipedia: A Community of persons building and refining an Encyclopedia of knowledge - and trying to learn how to get along while doing it.
And these community values must be shared, practiced and reinforced every single day, by every single member: This is how it is here & This is how we are. And anyone not willing to share these values, must find a community more to their liking.
For civility and a sense of Community to truly be a part of Wikipedia's identity - they must first be a part of its bloodstream.
Be healthy in the new Year,
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 12/30/07 11:46 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip> > First problem: who can be defined as a community member ? What is > community ? We worked on that problem a year ago during the chapter > meeting and no satisfactory solution was found. > Florence,
This is a rather critical question here in the Project. References to "Community", "the Community", "Community Member(s)", etc., are made nearly every day throughout the various communications. When you worked on the problem a year ago, what was the final conclusion as to a definition of "Community" as relates to the Projects?
Marc Riddell
on 12/31/07 6:26 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Unfortunately, not satisfying answer. Community is too amorphous a concept.
In its largest meaning, community is "human population". The people we are working to create content for.
Some, in particular with regards to elections, consider that "community" is "every person interested in what we are doing". This will be a reason why some will consider that Larry Lessig, though not a participant of our projects, though not knowing anything of our internal workings, is a community member.
A more restricted definition will be "every person involved in what we are doing". That will involve editors, but also our developers for example. Note that some members of our internal community belong to this group, though they have hardly ever be editors; we would nevertheless consider them as "part of the community". Note that this definition is not the one followed by current elections (people who are developers, and have hardly ever edited do not have the right to vote). I consider more or less this definition as being the definition of "the organization community".
An even more restricted definition is "those who have at least xxx edits on one of our projects". This is the current election definition for voters.
Of course, even the more restricted definition of community allow further division. There is the Wikipedia community, the Wiktionary community, the Wikibooks community (the first being dominant but the other ones fighting for their recognition and the recognition of their own specificities, which is good). Then, there is the english community, french community, japanese community. And every mix we could imagine, english wikipedia, german wikibooks, spanish wiktionary.
I'll be happy to add there the mediawiki community, overlapping largely with all others.
And it would be fair to say that there are two other communities, which to the contrary of ALL others, are closed and very little flexible. The internal community, and the comcom community.
And I think I can not leave aside the chapter communities, which is also a group of sort.
I probably forget a couple of communities...
The meeting in oct 06 was unable to decide what "community" was, because it is simply impossible. However, I thought we should have tried to work on the definition of "community" meaning with regards to representativity.
The current situation at the board level is broken, because we stated that "we want a majority coming from community" (through elections or appointement), but without defining what community is.
So, current situation is that for example, some are arguing that Jan-Bart is not from the community; but others are arguing that he is from the community. Both statements are correct, depending on the definition. For JB, it is probably very hurting to tell him "you are an outsider", however, he has never put his hands in the practical job.
For example, some are arguing that Jimbo is not a community member, whilst Jimbo argues that he is. He knows some of our communities, but it would be fair to argue that he always had a special position, and as such, can hardly represent those with no special position.
For example, some argue that Larry Lessig is a community member, whilst most do not. Larry knows part of the free world, does that mean he could represent the editors or developers playing with the clay every day ?
What I would love seeing is a rather more granular definition of community, without going radical. By and large, there is
- the editing community, and I would suggest breaking it down by
projects, then perhaps by languages if necessary
- the developer community
- the chapter community
Each of these three communities would have a certain number of seats reserved on the board, each seat being clearly labelled as "representing the 1) editors, or 2) developers and 3) chapter, communities".
It is up to these three communities to decide how they want to select their representative. I would freely suggest chapters could do so by direct vote of all chapter members; it would make wonder to push chapters to get a common voice. I would freely suggest developers could do so by direct vote of all developer members; with "eligeability" to vote being "have submitted at least xx number of accepted patches, or whatever allow them to recognize real developers from jerks". I would freely suggest editing community to think of moving toward indirect vote, thought the wikicouncil.
All this draw a picture of three main communities.
- Those editing the projects
- Those helping through technical maintenance or software improvement
- Those facilitating content development, distribution and lobbying,
through legal structures (wikimedia chapters)
We could imagine 6 seats being reserved for these three communities. Such as 1 for developer, 2 for chapters and 3 for editors.
That would let 5 seats. Which could be filled up directly by board itself through appointment, or be filled up by a nominating committee, if there is such thing one day.
Thank you very much for this, Florence. This is the most precise, well-articulated description of the various aspects of "community" as it applies to the Wikipedia Project I have seen to date.
Where your thoughts run in the practical direction of the concept of Community (voting & other decision-making areas) mine runs in a more intangible one: Anyone who contributes in a positive way to advance the values and goals of the Project.
Until recently, when I spoke of "The Wikipedia Community", I had been thinking, according to your breakdown above, specifically of the body of persons who actually edit the encyclopedia. And my goals have been to want this Community of persons to be regarded with dignity, respect and trust. For them to have a reasonable voice in the workings of the Project's administration and decision-making processes. And for them to have some semblance of control over their own fates within the Project.
This respect and trust must, of course, work both ways - We must earn it from each other.
I'm really just brainstorming without an umbrella here:
What I'm going for is more of a sense of community than a fact of community. A sense of belonging and loyalty that can be instilled and held only though the culture. It can begin by each person being honest and asking themselves what they are doing here and why.
One outstanding positive effect this sense of community pride would have on the Project itself is that persons are less likely to freely abuse a group they truly feel they are a part of. Would you burn down your house if you still felt it was your home?
A person who feels they have been valued by a community is less likely to abuse or harm it, or its members, if they feel they are still a part of it.
There needs to be a civility initiative in the Project that is reflected in every interaction. People need to compliment each other more, and cut each other some slack when they take risks and make some mistakes.
Take care of the new members of the Community, and remember they are learning about the culture with every new encounter and interaction.
Also, there could be something similar to a barnstar that we place on our User Pages ourselves saying something like "I am a proud Member of the Wikipedia Community" with a design such as a Globe similar to the WP Globe, but with a figure of a person at the N, S, E & W locations.
I would like to see placed at the top of the Wikipedia Main Page, a banner that says something like, "Be honest - be fair - be assertive, be civil."
Wikipedia: A Community of persons building and refining an Encyclopedia of knowledge - and trying to learn how to get along while doing it.
And these community values must be shared, practiced and reinforced every single day, by every single member: This is how it is here & This is how we are. And anyone not willing to share these values, must find a community more to their liking.
For civility and a sense of Community to truly be a part of Wikipedia's identity - they must first be a part of its bloodstream.
Be healthy in the new Year,
Marc
Very beautiful email Marc. Thank you for it.
Ant
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org