[Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council: May we start? - Wikimedia-l

Chad

8 Apr 8 Apr

3:43 p.m.

Until the Board decides either way on the (P)VC, there should be no private wikis or mailing lists. If those of you on Effe's shortlist want to congregate somewhere off WMF-endorsed lists and wikis privately, that's your own agenda, but to make a private list or wiki when there's no official endorsement from the Foundation is unacceptable. We already have a community paranoid of "cabals" and "secret lists" as it is, and making one on the official mailing lists without and Board approval wouldn't help that paranoia in the least. -Chad On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

After a long discussion at foundation-l, I may conclude that: - Provisional Volunteer Council will or won't not be a WMF body. - Volunteer Council will or won't deal with WMF bylaws. - It will deal with projects, for sure. According to that, my proposal is: - To start to work as a Wikimedian group (to make a private mailing list, maybe a wiki, too) and to wait what would be the Board's decision. - To delay (until Board's decision) work on implementation of "the complement to the Board, Advisory board, Office etc.". Until Board's decision we are able: - To work on constituting a community's body which would deal with projects. - To work on representation and other issues not strictly related to the formal relation between the Board and the community. - Not to work out the scope of the Lodewijk's proposal because of the possibility to become a body which creates a legal body. - To inform the community once per month about our work (let's say that May 15th should be the time for the first report). If the Board didn't make a decision at this meeting, it should consider our work retroactively. The Board may change the names of the councils if it is willing to do so. Nine of us at the list + Lodewijk may start with work immediately. Because of formal reasons, our first decision may be adopting Lodewijk as a member. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Milos Rancic

6:20 p.m.

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'm neither interested in a private wiki nor a private mailing list for this. I would be fine with a communications medium that was read-only for non-members. We do want the community to know what we are discussing, even if we take some measures to keep the noise level down while we are discussing it.

I prefer the idea of having read-only for non-members list, too. However, Ray has some concerns about that.

...

Also, I agree with Chad that no wiki/list/whatever be set up until we have board approval on a resolution to create a PVC in the first place. Jumping the gun here is really not a good idea.

Then, we will wait. I don't have anything against that, too. My reaction was based on suggestions which had been made by other people.

Reply

Milos Rancic

6:53 p.m.

I was thinking about having two lists: one read-only and one private. Read-only should be used for the most of discussions, while private should be used if someone asks for that (which should be notified somehow at the read-only list; maybe like "a contributor asked for private conversation" or "a council member asked for that" -- without mentioning names, of course). The problem with that concept is that PVC should have a time-limited mandate and that I am sure that two lists may mean significantly less efficiency. But, if we introduce a wiki, then we may solve it in the sense that a wiki would be read-only medium, while a list would be a private one. I think that both resources should be left to be used by VC. On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:27 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I've read the post in the threads on the (P)VC but have not commented further since I'm undecided about the next steps until I hear more from the board and the staff. From my experience on ArbCom, a wiki is a much better place to keep a record of the discussions by topic. They also can be watchlisted so updates to threads of discussion are more obvious and topics under discussions can be completed sooner. I agree that transparency is important for most of the work, but not all. Some people are timid about making comments in public forums. If users want to contact the group privately with idea or concerns, I would like for them to be heard. Sydney On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I'm neither interested in a private wiki nor a private mailing list for this. I would be fine with a communications medium that was read-only for non-members. We do want the community to know what we are discussing, even if we take some measures to keep the noise level down while we are discussing it. Also, I agree with Chad that no wiki/list/whatever be set up until we have board approval on a resolution to create a PVC in the first place. Jumping the gun here is really not a good idea. --Andrew Whitworth On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Until the Board decides either way on the (P)VC, there should be no private wikis or mailing lists. If those of you on Effe's shortlist want to congregate somewhere off WMF-endorsed lists and wikis privately, that's your own agenda, but to make a private list or wiki when there's no official endorsement from the Foundation is unacceptable. We already have a community paranoid of "cabals" and "secret lists" as it is, and making one on the official mailing lists without and Board approval wouldn't help that paranoia in the least. -Chad

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Ray Saintonge

9 Apr 9 Apr

10:35 a.m.

Milos Rancic wrote:

...

I was thinking about having two lists: one read-only and one private. Read-only should be used for the most of discussions, while private should be used if someone asks for that (which should be notified somehow at the read-only list; maybe like "a contributor asked for private conversation" or "a council member asked for that" -- without mentioning names, of course). The problem with that concept is that PVC should have a time-limited mandate and that I am sure that two lists may mean significantly less efficiency. But, if we introduce a wiki, then we may solve it in the sense that a wiki would be read-only medium, while a list would be a private one. I think that both resources should be left to be used by VC. On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:27 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've read the post in the threads on the (P)VC but have not commented > further since I'm undecided about the next steps until I hear more > from the board and the staff. > > From my experience on ArbCom, a wiki is a much better place to keep a > record of the discussions by topic. They also can be watchlisted so > updates to threads of discussion are more obvious and topics under > discussions can be completed sooner. > > I agree that transparency is important for most of the work, but not all. > > Some people are timid about making comments in public forums. If users > want to contact the group privately with idea or concerns, I would > like for them to be heard. >

I'm generally supportive of Milos's Plan B in the event that the Board fails to Act, but it's clearly better to have the Board on the same page as the VC, If the Board proposes limitations on the VC, we would do best to try to accommodate that. A little patience is to our advantage. What Sydney says about people being timid plays a big part in my own concerns about completely open discussions. It also has to do with the public giving brainstorm proposals more weight than anybody imagined. Balancing openness with practical operations will need to be one of the group's early challenges. Ec

...

> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm neither interested in a private wiki nor a private mailing list > > for this. I would be fine with a communications medium that was > > read-only for non-members. We do want the community to know what we > > are discussing, even if we take some measures to keep the noise level > > down while we are discussing it. > > > > Also, I agree with Chad that no wiki/list/whatever be set up until we > > have board approval on a resolution to create a PVC in the first > > place. Jumping the gun here is really not a good idea. > > > > --Andrew Whitworth > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Until the Board decides either way on the (P)VC, there > > > should be no private wikis or mailing lists. If those of > > > you on Effe's shortlist want to congregate somewhere > > > off WMF-endorsed lists and wikis privately, that's your > > > own agenda, but to make a private list or wiki when > > > there's no official endorsement from the Foundation > > > is unacceptable. We already have a community paranoid > > > of "cabals" and "secret lists" as it is, and making one > > > on the official mailing lists without and Board approval > > > wouldn't help that paranoia in the least.

Reply