Kernigh wrote:

...

fyi, i have started a poll concerning '''wikistandards''' at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_for_standards#Poll

Because [[Wiki for standards]] and [[Wiki for standards/Vote]] are not linked from anywhere else in Meta (in fact, I only know about them from reading foundation-l), I have posted a comment to the vote page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_for_standards/Vote#comments

-- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]]

I would like to point out that while the vote page seems to be structurally sound, take a look at the history page and you will see that almost none of the people listed on the supporting side have actually cast their votes. This is merely somebody who has gone through the effort to consolodate a list of general supporters of the concept. This is not that they are sock puppets, but that they havn't really been given the opportunity to really review the proposal.

It would also be useful to try and advertise this interest survey onto the other sister projects as well.

I know that the people involved with this want to see it become reality and in general I support their efforts. I think this would be an excellent candidate for the seed wiki (or whatever name that goes under) to try and see what the group of supporters could come up with. The content that they are trying to develop doesn't really fit on any of the current Wikimedia projects, including Wikibooks, which is the most likely candidate for hosting content of this nature.

I wish that before this vote began, that a little more discussion took place to try and develop this concept, as well as try to make it a broader proposal than just a language standard Wiki. Yes, there were some comments here on this mailing list, some discussion at the conference mentioned in the proposal, and some private e-mails on the topic, but this page that is discussing the project proposal was only linked to the New Project page yesterday. I hardly call 1 day of wide discussion enough to come to a community concensus by even supporters of the project, much less trying to turn the idea into a polished proposal. Seeing what the Wikiversity supporters are going through right now in developing their revised proposal, I don't see anywhere near that quality of work going into this proposal.

GerardM wrote:

On 1/27/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:

On an other level, when a project can only be considered properly discussed when it has been discussed in the same way as the Wikiversity project, it denies that it is a different proposal. The arguments for these projects are different. Comparing these two proposals in such a way serves no purpose.

I did copy the people who indicated their support as voting in favour of this proposal. I did this because these people do not frequent the Wikimedia projects as a favour. I promissed Oscar that when someone of this list would remove all of them. I will.

Thanks, GerardM

I have been a critic of how bureaucratic the process of becoming a new project has become, so in some ways I see what you are doing as a sort of breath of fresh air. It is nice to see that this proposal has been moving forward and a serious attempt is being made to get the whole idea working.

As far as Wikiversity is concerned, I was just using it as a comparison to how perhaps a successful project should be done. Another very good example and the true standard that most new projects are put up against is Wikinews and the whole proposal process that got that project going. There was some serious discussion that happened over the course of several months including the development of the [[m:Wikinews]] project.

Here is a comparison to the level of discussion I think should be for a new project at a similar stage to where Wikistandards should be at. Compare these two pages on Meta:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews&oldid=72346

and the corrisponding talk page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikinews&oldid=73381

There is a reason why Wikinews was developed relatively quickly from when the proposal was put together and the vote started. And even that wasn't without any hangups or rough spots once it got going.

Ultimately, what you need to do as well is somehow convince the mainstream Wikimedia users that this new project is going to be developed and can be considered an equal to the rest of the Wikimedia sister projects. Two projects that were started earlier and have been struggling since are the 9/11 Memorial Wiki and Wikispecies. Most of the opposition votes on both Wikiversity and Wikinews were to never see projects like that started again. I think it is reasonable to offer a comparison to Wikispecies and potentially what Wikistandards may offer, even if it is just in contrast in suggesting that a fairly large group of individuals is going to get the project going, and that you have a reasonable plan to not only deal with potential objections but that you also have an idea of where the project will be in a couple of years and what the ultimate vision of this project will be.

As for the votes, I was suprised that my name was listed when I know that I didn't vote on that page as a vote of support. Yes, I support the idea of Wikistandards, but I know of no other user interest poll that started with a bunch of votes already seeded when the survey was started. If you genuinely have the support of these individuals, it wouldn't matter if the poll was brand new or not, they would take the time and do the voting themselves after they see what their name is attached to. Having organized the Wikiversity vote, I made extra steps to make sure that there could not be any objections to any one of the votes that were cast in support, and indeed a good number of supporting votes were culled before the final count was made.

One other issue that needs to be dealt with immediately is the opposition vote by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board. This proposal is already starting out on the wrong foot if you can't at least keep the board members neutral on the idea in a "let's wait and see what the community will come up with" attitude. I would highly recommend trying to overcome Angela's objections as this whole thing is going to have to end up in formal discussions with the Foundation Board anyway. It would be far better to have a supporter than an opponent on the board before the voting ends.

Angela wrote:

On 1/28/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:

...

One other issue that needs to be dealt with immediately is the opposition vote by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board.

Two members of the Board were elected by the community, so, unsurprisingly, those two people are going to be involved in community matters like this poll. I realise some people would prefer the Board be made only of external people, but with the current situation, you're going to have to accept that at least two people on the Board have dual roles of being on the Board and being Wikimedians. I am not going to accept the constant attempts to prevent me expressing any opinion outside of official meetings.

We will soon have the Special Projects Committee http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Special_projects to decide things like this, so I can't see the results of the poll going directly to the stage of Board decision anyway. Since we're delegating authority away from the Board, my view on the matter, as someone not intending to be on the SP Committee, isn't any more relevant than that of anyone else voting.

Angela.

As for having members of the board being outsiders, I think that should not happen at all or under exceptional circumstances. I support the concept of Wikimedians being involved with the board, and I understand the role of being both a leader and a contributor... and having opinions as well. We live with that on all of the Wikimedia projects anyway, where admins and bureaucrats are also ordinary editors and contributors as well... each with their own opinion and often vote on things like VfDs and policy questions within projects.

I was just trying to point out as a practical matter that if you already have objections to some proposal, unless some very convincing arguments are offered between when you register that objection and when you will see this proposal before the board formally I don't see that you are going to change your mind. And with only four other members on that same board this proposal for Wikistandards has an uphill intellectual battle to fight to convince at least three members of the board (for a simple majority... I know the board tries to reach concensus instead in most matters anyway) to support the proposal. In addition, just because you are in a leadership role you will have some supporters that will simply follow your lead on opinions as well. This has also happened with Wikistandards and is nothing to be ashamed of. You lead and others follow, that is by definition leadership. I've seen it happen with votes I've done on Wikibooks myself, and in other areas of life.

BTW, I like the idea of a specialized committee that would review project proposals like Wikistandards. It would at the very least provide a single source of contact to ask questions about proposing new projects, rather than posting comments on Meta and having the question sit unanswered for several months with just random opinions from other users that come up from time to time, or get into a flame war on this list.

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

...

As for having members of the board being outsiders, I think that should not happen at all or under exceptional circumstances.

It's nice to hear that side for a change. I was beginning to form the impression elected members were neither necessary nor wanted.

On 1/30/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:

Some committees might benefit from the guidance of qualified outsiders, but the committees should still be dominated by volunteers, either selected by a transparent and fair process with Board oversight or, as Erik suggests, with open membership.

I don't think there's any suggestion the committees (as opposed to the Board) should be dominated by anything other than community members at this stage. The processes of selecting those members are still under discussion, and something the people organizing the committees the Board approved the creation of (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions have been asked to report on by February 11.

On 1/30/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

At our size, however, we are faced with enormous responsibilities. ... This is something that requires professional legal and financial knowhow.

Luckily we have an awful lot of legal and financial know-how within the community. More than we could ever afford to pay for, and, more importantly, coming from people who not only have that knowledge, but have an understanding of what Wikimedia is and a belief in its principles.

On 1/30/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

In some cases liability insurance can be purchased, but that too can be expensive.

The Foundation does intend to purchase insurance. Work has already gone into completing applications for Board and Officers Liability insurance and also for the more expensive Cyber Insurance. It was partly the need to list the "Officers" on the application that raised the question Anthere mentioned in this thread of who is an "Officer", and whether the people Jimmy gave various titles to last year fell under that definition.

Angela.