I write this email with much hesitation. The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council. Naturally, setting up such a structure is bound to be difficult, due to the following issues to discuss and decide * what would be the roles of such a council ? * would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation board members ? * would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ? * how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules, depending on project size, languages etc...) * ...
In short, a nest of questions.
The issue has been raised many times already. If there are people interested in setting up a proposal, please just tell me. I am not talking of "discussion" here, I am talking of "writing down a proposal". On which the board could have a look. On which the community could comment and then vote.
Anyway, if interested, jsut tell me and we can organise a little chat and a page about that. If noone interested, time will see :-)
Ant
I feel that if we were to set up a secondary council, it should be that of outside people with talents that would be beneficial to the Foundation.
On 11/19/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I write this email with much hesitation. The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council. Naturally, setting up such a structure is bound to be difficult, due to the following issues to discuss and decide
- what would be the roles of such a council ?
- would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
board members ?
- would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
- how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules,
depending on project size, languages etc...)
- ...
In short, a nest of questions.
The issue has been raised many times already. If there are people interested in setting up a proposal, please just tell me. I am not talking of "discussion" here, I am talking of "writing down a proposal". On which the board could have a look. On which the community could comment and then vote.
Anyway, if interested, jsut tell me and we can organise a little chat and a page about that. If noone interested, time will see :-)
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
the first doesn't exclude the second :)
2006/11/19, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com:
I feel that if we were to set up a secondary council, it should be that of outside people with talents that would be beneficial to the Foundation.
On 11/19/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I write this email with much hesitation. The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council. Naturally, setting up such a structure is bound to be difficult, due to the following issues to discuss and decide
- what would be the roles of such a council ?
- would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
board members ?
- would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
- how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules,
depending on project size, languages etc...)
- ...
In short, a nest of questions.
The issue has been raised many times already. If there are people interested in setting up a proposal, please just tell me. I am not talking of "discussion" here, I am talking of "writing down a proposal". On which the board could have a look. On which the community could comment and then vote.
Anyway, if interested, jsut tell me and we can organise a little chat and a page about that. If noone interested, time will see :-)
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James, this is not about the Advisory Board, where external participation is welcomed. This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Erik Zachte
-----Original Message----- From: James Hare [mailto:messedrocker@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 19 November 2006 19:10 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil
I feel that if we were to set up a secondary council, it should be that of outside people with talents that would be beneficial to the Foundation.
On 11/19/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I write this email with much hesitation. The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council. Naturally, setting up such a structure is bound to be difficult, due to the following issues to discuss and decide
- what would be the roles of such a council ?
- would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
board members ?
- would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
- how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules,
depending on project size, languages etc...)
- ...
In short, a nest of questions.
The issue has been raised many times already. If there are people interested in setting up a proposal, please just tell me. I am not talking of "discussion" here, I am talking of "writing down a proposal". On which the board could have a look. On which the community could comment and then vote.
Anyway, if interested, jsut tell me and we can organise a little chat and a page about that. If noone interested, time will see :-)
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 19/11/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
James, this is not about the Advisory Board, where external participation is welcomed. This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Sounds like a useful tool to deal with people who need to be kept busy and well away from anything important.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/11/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
James, this is not about the Advisory Board, where external participation is welcomed. This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Sounds like a useful tool to deal with people who need to be kept busy and well away from anything important.
Do I detect yet another note of pessimism?
Ec
On 19/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/11/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Sounds like a useful tool to deal with people who need to be kept busy and well away from anything important.
Do I detect yet another note of pessimism?
No, I'm just not entirely sure what it's for, or what scaling problems it helps solve ... it seems like something to make people feel more involved, which is good; but its useful function isn't elegantly obvious.
- d.
This could probably be an advisory committee to the Board, someone through which the Board could run ideas and ask questions that would affect Wikimedia as a whole. Also, it would be similar to UninvitedCompany's idea of "Wikipedia ambassadors", or users who are responsible for spreading Wikimedia-wide messages to their local wikis.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:39 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil
On 19/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/11/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Sounds like a useful tool to deal with people who need to be kept busy and well away from anything important.
Do I detect yet another note of pessimism?
No, I'm just not entirely sure what it's for, or what scaling problems it helps solve ... it seems like something to make people feel more involved, which is good; but its useful function isn't elegantly obvious.
- d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This could also be used to raise awareness and understanding of other projects, their needs, and how they run things so that other projects can develop their own processes based on the successful ones of an existing wiki. Unification under the Wikimedia medallion.
On 11/19/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
This could probably be an advisory committee to the Board, someone through which the Board could run ideas and ask questions that would affect Wikimedia as a whole. Also, it would be similar to UninvitedCompany's idea of "Wikipedia ambassadors", or users who are responsible for spreading Wikimedia-wide messages to their local wikis.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:39 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil
On 19/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/11/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Sounds like a useful tool to deal with people who need to be kept busy and well away from anything important.
Do I detect yet another note of pessimism?
No, I'm just not entirely sure what it's for, or what scaling problems it helps solve ... it seems like something to make people feel more involved, which is good; but its useful function isn't elegantly obvious.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
This could probably be an advisory committee to the Board, someone through which the Board could run ideas and ask questions that would affect Wikimedia as a whole. Also, it would be similar to UninvitedCompany's idea of "Wikipedia ambassadors", or users who are responsible for spreading Wikimedia-wide messages to their local wikis.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:39 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil
On 19/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/11/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Sounds like a useful tool to deal with people who need to be kept busy and well away from anything important.
Do I detect yet another note of pessimism?
No, I'm just not entirely sure what it's for, or what scaling problems it helps solve ... it seems like something to make people feel more involved, which is good; but its useful function isn't elegantly obvious.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You have no idea how many times I've tried to explain something to editors (and admins) of Spanish Wikipedia and read "What's the Wikimedia foundation?" "Who's Jimmy Wales, Florence... xxx?", "What's this whole board thing about?".
Raising awareness of what the whole thing is, by inviting them to join a Wiki Council from people of different projects is a great start, and will improve our wikiocracy.
Regards, Damian
Or when I tell people that almost every single mainspace article on Wikinews is permanently locked from editing and they're used to the Wikipedia idea of continual development so they think it's insanity.
On 11/19/06, Damian Finol damian@igluve.org wrote:
Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
This could probably be an advisory committee to the Board, someone
through
which the Board could run ideas and ask questions that would affect Wikimedia as a whole. Also, it would be similar to UninvitedCompany's
idea
of "Wikipedia ambassadors", or users who are responsible for spreading Wikimedia-wide messages to their local wikis.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:39 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil
On 19/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/11/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Sounds like a useful tool to deal with people who need to be kept busy and well away from anything important.
Do I detect yet another note of pessimism?
No, I'm just not entirely sure what it's for, or what scaling problems it helps solve ... it seems like something to make people feel more involved, which is good; but its useful function isn't elegantly obvious.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You have no idea how many times I've tried to explain something to editors (and admins) of Spanish Wikipedia and read "What's the Wikimedia foundation?" "Who's Jimmy Wales, Florence... xxx?", "What's this whole board thing about?".
Raising awareness of what the whole thing is, by inviting them to join a Wiki Council from people of different projects is a great start, and will improve our wikiocracy.
Regards, Damian _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree. This could be one of the role of it. As a project grow, it becomes more and more difficult to find a key person to get messages through (both ways) (depending on languages. Obviously, it is not a problem in english).
Ant
Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
This could probably be an advisory committee to the Board, someone through which the Board could run ideas and ask questions that would affect Wikimedia as a whole. Also, it would be similar to UninvitedCompany's idea of "Wikipedia ambassadors", or users who are responsible for spreading Wikimedia-wide messages to their local wikis.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:39 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil
On 19/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/11/06, Erik Zachte erikzachte@infodisiac.com wrote:
This is about the Wikicouncil, as discussed on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Sounds like a useful tool to deal with people who need to be kept busy and well away from anything important.
Do I detect yet another note of pessimism?
No, I'm just not entirely sure what it's for, or what scaling problems it helps solve ... it seems like something to make people feel more involved, which is good; but its useful function isn't elegantly obvious.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James Hare wrote:
I feel that if we were to set up a secondary council, it should be that of outside people with talents that would be beneficial to the Foundation.
I think your mixing this proposal up with the idea of an advisory council which could still be an entirely different body.
Ec
Yes, I had heard that earlier.
Anyways, in that case we would have the Board of Trustees, the Advisory Council, and the Wiki Council. Three councils. Why should we have three? Why couldn't we compress it down to, oh, 2?
On 11/19/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
James Hare wrote:
I feel that if we were to set up a secondary council, it should be that
of
outside people with talents that would be beneficial to the Foundation.
I think your mixing this proposal up with the idea of an advisory council which could still be an entirely different body.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James Hare wrote:
Yes, I had heard that earlier.
Anyways, in that case we would have the Board of Trustees, the Advisory Council, and the Wiki Council. Three councils. Why should we have three? Why couldn't we compress it down to, oh, 2?
On 11/19/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
James Hare wrote:
I feel that if we were to set up a secondary council, it should be that
of
outside people with talents that would be beneficial to the Foundation.
I think your mixing this proposal up with the idea of an advisory council which could still be an entirely different body.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It's a form of Wikiocracy, each one has it's tasks and serves for a specific purpose.
In the case of the Wiki Council, I've seen some previous drafts and it's more of a representation of several projects in some sort of House of Representatives, the objective of which is, that every project and subproject has a voice with a fixed ammount of people, for example 3 from major projects, 2 for sub projects and other numbers I've seen.
It's our form of Wikiocracy, and I think it's a good idea.
Anthere, I would love to discuss this and participate in anyway possible.
Regards,
Damian Finol
It could be because they are councils with different aims and are based on different skills. Isn't it?
Ilario^_^
James Hare wrote:
Yes, I had heard that earlier.
Anyways, in that case we would have the Board of Trustees, the Advisory Council, and the Wiki Council. Three councils. Why should we have three? Why couldn't we compress it down to, oh, 2?
James Hare wrote:
Anyways, in that case we would have the Board of Trustees, the Advisory Council, and the Wiki Council. Three councils. Why should we have three? Why couldn't we compress it down to, oh, 2?
They would serve different purposes. As I understand it
The Trustees would pretty well do what they do now. This is essentially deal with the business, legal and financial interests of the organization.
The Council would be made up of active Wikimedians, and could be involved in the detailed co-ordination of projects in a way that best assures and balances with the autonomy of each project. It would have limited decision making power within pre-defined parameters.
The Advisors would mostly not be active Wikimedians. They would help to keep us abreast of developments in the broader community, help in co-ordinating with outside projects, or even with lobbying. They would have no decision making powers.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
James Hare wrote:
Anyways, in that case we would have the Board of Trustees, the Advisory Council, and the Wiki Council. Three councils. Why should we have three? Why couldn't we compress it down to, oh, 2?
They would serve different purposes. As I understand it
The Trustees would pretty well do what they do now. This is essentially deal with the business, legal and financial interests of the organization.
Nod.
The Council would be made up of active Wikimedians, and could be involved in the detailed co-ordination of projects in a way that best assures and balances with the autonomy of each project. It would have limited decision making power within pre-defined parameters.
Nod. And *if* we decide so (and *this* of course is controversial), they could be a body elected board members. Or, if the board appoints some of its members, it could be the body suggesting a list of names (of wikipedians or of external people) to the board to pick up some future board members from it.
The Advisors would mostly not be active Wikimedians. They would help to keep us abreast of developments in the broader community, help in co-ordinating with outside projects, or even with lobbying. They would have no decision making powers.
Nod. Note that the advisory board already exist and that we will start populating it in 2 weeks time. Reminder: I am still waiting suggestions of people to add on this board.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-November/011353.html
Ant
Ec
Anthere wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The Council would be made up of active Wikimedians, and could be involved in the detailed co-ordination of projects in a way that best assures and balances with the autonomy of each project. It would have limited decision making power within pre-defined parameters.
Nod. And *if* we decide so (and *this* of course is controversial), they could be a body elected board members. Or, if the board appoints some of its members, it could be the body suggesting a list of names (of wikipedians or of external people) to the board to pick up some future board members from it.
I think that it's important for the members of the proposed working group to be open-minded about this. I have never given that idea much thought, but it's easy to see both good and bad in it. The general Wikimedia community needs to feel confident that the council is going to protect the broad influence of the community rather than act like a bunch of oligarchs.
Ec
Actually I think earlier attemps to discuss WikiCouncil failed partially because too few people knew about it. There was hardly any mentioning of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil on mailing lists when the initial proposal was produced, if I remember correctly.
I'm not sure if the proverbial 'design by committee' does not lead to watered down compromises. Maybe after some initial brainstorming we could solicit individual proposals, in a more or less uniform format. A similar method is used often at Wikimedia, from logo design to main page designs. Then the community can provide feedback and the most appealing proposal(s) be further explored.
Erik Zachte
-----Original Message----- From: Anthere [mailto:Anthere9@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, 19 November 2006 17:06 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] wikicouncil
I write this email with much hesitation. The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council. Naturally, setting up such a structure is bound to be difficult, due to the following issues to discuss and decide
- what would be the roles of such a council ?
- would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
board members ?
- would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
- how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules,
depending on project size, languages etc...)
- ...
In short, a nest of questions.
The issue has been raised many times already. If there are people interested in setting up a proposal, please just tell me. I am not talking of "discussion" here, I am talking of "writing down a proposal". On which the board could have a look. On which the community could comment and then vote.
Anyway, if interested, jsut tell me and we can organise a little chat and a page about that. If noone interested, time will see :-)
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Nov 19, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Anthere wrote:
I write this email with much hesitation. The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council. Naturally, setting up such a structure is bound to be difficult, due to the following issues to discuss and decide
- what would be the roles of such a council ?
- would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
board members ?
- would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
- how would people be added to this council (and along with which
rules, depending on project size, languages etc...)
- ...
In short, a nest of questions.
The issue has been raised many times already. If there are people interested in setting up a proposal, please just tell me. I am not talking of "discussion" here, I am talking of "writing down a proposal". On which the board could have a look. On which the community could comment and then vote.
Anyway, if interested, jsut tell me and we can organise a little chat and a page about that. If noone interested, time will see :-)
I' m doubtful as to value of a group meeting somewhere in the World. I know I would not be able to come. I would welcome creation of a series of talk pages.
Fred
Anthere wrote:
I write this email with much hesitation.
Understandably!
The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council.
I first raised such an idea before the first by-laws were adopted.
Naturally, setting up such a structure is bound to be difficult, due to the following issues to discuss and decide
- what would be the roles of such a council ?
It's the most important issue. Unless a vision can be developed of what such a group would do, figuring out its membership or operating procedures would be pointless
- would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
board members ?
An interesting concept. It may want to propose such a thing, but it could not decide by itself to do this. Before such a voting process could be adopted a by-law amendment would be needed, AND there should be more general consent by Wikimedians in general.
- would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
Perhaps, iff there is broad support for this.
- how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules,
depending on project size, languages etc...)
I would not be prepared to prejudge this.
The issue has been raised many times already. If there are people interested in setting up a proposal, please just tell me. I am not talking of "discussion" here, I am talking of "writing down a proposal". On which the board could have a look. On which the community could comment and then vote.
I agree. Unless such a pilot group is set up nothing will ever happen. I know only too well what happens to inovative proposals that are made on the mailing lista. You have commented yourself that some of your best and most thoughtful ideas get no response.
Anyway, if interested, jsut tell me and we can organise a little chat and a page about that. If noone interested, time will see :-)
Count me as interested.
Ec
On 11/19/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council.
Indeed. I'm not a big fan of the idea, but it is a nice buzzword that many people seem to identify with, regardless of the fact that they all seem to mean different things when they are using it. We already have quite a lot of bureaucracy, and I'd like to avoid the creation of new structures that are either redundant or potentially harmful. So let's see what possible functions a council could serve:
* Advise the Board and CEO -- that's what the Advisory Board is for. I'd be open to structuring it in such a way to allow experts from the community an easy way in. * Make project-level decisions -- why replace direct democracy and consensus-based processes with a representative bureaucracy? I'd rather see more project-wide votes. * Act as project representatives to chapters and Foundation, to deal with confidential information -- we already have the committees. We still haven't figured out a way to make them work, especially the SP-COM, which is exactly tasked with developing partnerships around the projects. I'd rather restructure these existing groups than inventing a completely new one. * Raise awareness of the Foundation within the projects -- a group that merely exists to raise awareness can form without the permission of the Foundation. Indeed, such informal groups are probably far less likely to cause trouble than a "Wikicouncil".
My biggest fear is that we start with something poorly defined, or with a very narrow scope, and it evolves into a decision-making structure that replaces existing community processes.Where these processes are currently dysfunctional, I don't think replacing them with a new system is likely to be a good idea. The causes of the dysfunction may only be moved to a different level.
I suggest, as an alternative, that the existing committee and subcommittee structures be reformed and surrounded with completely open "Open Interest Groups" without legal authority. I will make a specific proposal for that in the near future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming#Approach
In particular
No criticism It is often emphasized that in group brainstorming, criticism should be put 'on hold'. Instead of immediately stating what might be wrong with an idea, the participants focus on extending or adding to it, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, you create a supportive atmosphere where participants feel free to generate unusual ideas.
Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg. That's not helpful in the long run imho.
Anthere
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/19/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council.
Indeed. I'm not a big fan of the idea, but it is a nice buzzword that many people seem to identify with, regardless of the fact that they all seem to mean different things when they are using it. We already have quite a lot of bureaucracy, and I'd like to avoid the creation of new structures that are either redundant or potentially harmful. So let's see what possible functions a council could serve:
- Advise the Board and CEO -- that's what the Advisory Board is for.
I'd be open to structuring it in such a way to allow experts from the community an easy way in.
- Make project-level decisions -- why replace direct democracy and
consensus-based processes with a representative bureaucracy? I'd rather see more project-wide votes.
- Act as project representatives to chapters and Foundation, to deal
with confidential information -- we already have the committees. We still haven't figured out a way to make them work, especially the SP-COM, which is exactly tasked with developing partnerships around the projects. I'd rather restructure these existing groups than inventing a completely new one.
- Raise awareness of the Foundation within the projects -- a group
that merely exists to raise awareness can form without the permission of the Foundation. Indeed, such informal groups are probably far less likely to cause trouble than a "Wikicouncil".
My biggest fear is that we start with something poorly defined, or with a very narrow scope, and it evolves into a decision-making structure that replaces existing community processes.Where these processes are currently dysfunctional, I don't think replacing them with a new system is likely to be a good idea. The causes of the dysfunction may only be moved to a different level.
I suggest, as an alternative, that the existing committee and subcommittee structures be reformed and surrounded with completely open "Open Interest Groups" without legal authority. I will make a specific proposal for that in the near future.
On 11/20/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg.
This particular egg is starting to smell funny, though ..
On 11/20/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
This particular egg is starting to smell funny, though ..
Ahem, apologies for being so negative. The Wikicouncil was first proposed in May 2005 and I haven't seen any significant development of the idea since then. I agree with Erik Zachte that it would make sense for those who support such a concept to develop proposals on their own, though I would like to see answers to the points I raised.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/20/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg.
This particular egg is starting to smell funny, though ..
A chinese delicacy :-) Okay, it is not a young suggestion
Let's do an omelet with wikicouncil, single login, wikidata, children filters, and other ancient concepts.
ant
Anthere wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/20/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg.
This particular egg is starting to smell funny, though ..
A chinese delicacy :-) Okay, it is not a young suggestion
Let's do an omelet with wikicouncil, single login, wikidata, children filters,
You filter children? How? By passing them through a fine wire mesh?
On 20/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
A chinese delicacy :-) Okay, it is not a young suggestion
Let's do an omelet with wikicouncil, single login, wikidata, children filters, and other ancient concepts.
I've not read the entire discussion so I've no idea whether we're seriously considering children filters. If this is purely a joke, forgive me for the humour failure.
I don't think Wikimedia or any of its projects should filter content for children (see the Wikipedia guidelines on this). Different children--even within the same nation, society or culture--are raised with differing cultural values. In many Christian countries, for example, there is a tendency to vilify sex and sexual content. I was raised without a sense of "wrongness" relating to sex and would not have appreciated it being thrust upon me.
If some Council were charged with creating filters for content, I am not in much doubt that it would be hijacked by those who wish to overly censor our content for "the sake of children". After all, surely the people most interested in creating filters are those who think Wikipedia is overly "liberal" (appalling word) in the content we serve and are overly lax about whom this content is served to?
Parents, using ISP and software "nannies" (or even sitting in the room with the child), should have the power to control what their children see. To that level, we should be entirely free and unrestricted in what our users are able to see.
On 21/11/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
If some Council were charged with creating filters for content, I am not in much doubt that it would be hijacked by those who wish to overly censor our content for "the sake of children". After all, surely the people most interested in creating filters are those who think Wikipedia is overly "liberal" (appalling word) in the content we serve and are overly lax about whom this content is served to?
A larger version of this is pretty much why I have qualms about this idea: there's quite enough editors looking for some way to tell other editors what to do, with the endpoint of driving them off the projects if they don't go along with them; and creating such a council without a clear reason appears to be an open invitation to such an attitude. Bureacracy is inherently harmful and must have a clear positive reason to exist.
- d.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 20/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
A chinese delicacy :-) Okay, it is not a young suggestion
Let's do an omelet with wikicouncil, single login, wikidata, children filters, and other ancient concepts.
I've not read the entire discussion so I've no idea whether we're seriously considering children filters. If this is purely a joke, forgive me for the humour failure.
I don't think Wikimedia or any of its projects should filter content for children (see the Wikipedia guidelines on this). Different children--even within the same nation, society or culture--are raised with differing cultural values. In many Christian countries, for example, there is a tendency to vilify sex and sexual content. I was raised without a sense of "wrongness" relating to sex and would not have appreciated it being thrust upon me.
If some Council were charged with creating filters for content, I am not in much doubt that it would be hijacked by those who wish to overly censor our content for "the sake of children". After all, surely the people most interested in creating filters are those who think Wikipedia is overly "liberal" (appalling word) in the content we serve and are overly lax about whom this content is served to?
Parents, using ISP and software "nannies" (or even sitting in the room with the child), should have the power to control what their children see. To that level, we should be entirely free and unrestricted in what our users are able to see.
While I wouldn't want to guess how a Wikicouncil might deal with this issue, there is a reasonable argument to say that it should at least consider the matter.
I agree that we should not be doing the censoring, but a mechanism that recognizes different sensitivities, and makes it easier for parents to apply such software '''on their own computers''' to the degree that they feel appropriate would not be out of the question.
Ec
Too many words... and too many "unquoted" words. Plz quote.
I agree with Anthere. Please extends your mind. For some reality the wikicouncil it's a way to understand other realities...
I know that to have a space in Wikipedia people *must* have a space in English Wikipedia, besides English Wikipedia it's 50% of Wiki**** and the Wikicouncil could be the way to understand that we are at crossroad: still remains a localized and focused project... to become an heterogeneous project (not globalized, but heterogeneous).
The Wikicouncil could be the way to understand that there are other realities and to offer to the board an ear given to these.
Is there a "digital divide" in Wiki*****. Yes, there is and it's could be a big problem. Plz, think about this situation... the special means to go over the "Digital Divide" has got a special "Digital Divide" inside.
Crazy situation.
Ilario^_^
Anthere wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming#Approach
Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg. That's not helpful in the long run imho.
Anthere
As Ilario said, let's try to open our minds a bit and discard the baggage from previous "Wikicouncil" concepts.
I'd also like to offer whatever the WikipediaWeekly (http://www.wikipediaweekly.com) podcast/audiocast can help in this matter. We've thought for a while a "town hall" live Skypecast might be useful for certain issues, with board members and other chapter heads taking part. This, and the vision/mission statement drafting, might be a good issue to start with. We've already had folks like Delphine, Kurt and Jimbo, on the podcast.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 11/21/06, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Too many words... and too many "unquoted" words. Plz quote.
I agree with Anthere. Please extends your mind. For some reality the wikicouncil it's a way to understand other realities...
I know that to have a space in Wikipedia people *must* have a space in English Wikipedia, besides English Wikipedia it's 50% of Wiki**** and the Wikicouncil could be the way to understand that we are at crossroad: still remains a localized and focused project... to become an heterogeneous project (not globalized, but heterogeneous).
The Wikicouncil could be the way to understand that there are other realities and to offer to the board an ear given to these.
Is there a "digital divide" in Wiki*****. Yes, there is and it's could be a big problem. Plz, think about this situation... the special means to go over the "Digital Divide" has got a special "Digital Divide" inside.
Crazy situation.
Ilario^_^
Anthere wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming#Approach
Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg. That's not helpful in the long run imho.
Anthere
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
By the way, I listened twice to the "advertisement" issue (number 3 or 4) and thought it very interesting. I recommand you try it :-)
ant
Andrew Lih wrote:
As Ilario said, let's try to open our minds a bit and discard the baggage from previous "Wikicouncil" concepts.
I'd also like to offer whatever the WikipediaWeekly (http://www.wikipediaweekly.com) podcast/audiocast can help in this matter. We've thought for a while a "town hall" live Skypecast might be useful for certain issues, with board members and other chapter heads taking part. This, and the vision/mission statement drafting, might be a good issue to start with. We've already had folks like Delphine, Kurt and Jimbo, on the podcast.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 11/21/06, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Too many words... and too many "unquoted" words. Plz quote.
I agree with Anthere. Please extends your mind. For some reality the wikicouncil it's a way to understand other realities...
I know that to have a space in Wikipedia people *must* have a space in English Wikipedia, besides English Wikipedia it's 50% of Wiki**** and the Wikicouncil could be the way to understand that we are at crossroad: still remains a localized and focused project... to become an heterogeneous project (not globalized, but heterogeneous).
The Wikicouncil could be the way to understand that there are other realities and to offer to the board an ear given to these.
Is there a "digital divide" in Wiki*****. Yes, there is and it's could be a big problem. Plz, think about this situation... the special means to go over the "Digital Divide" has got a special "Digital Divide" inside.
Crazy situation.
Ilario^_^
Anthere wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming#Approach
Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg. That's not helpful in the long run imho.
Anthere
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
Agree with Erik here. There are too many comms, etc. as it is. When everyone wants to be a chief, there are no indians left, and no work gets done :-)
Jeff
On 11/19/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council.
Indeed. I'm not a big fan of the idea, but it is a nice buzzword that many people seem to identify with, regardless of the fact that they all seem to mean different things when they are using it. We already have quite a lot of bureaucracy, and I'd like to avoid the creation of new structures that are either redundant or potentially harmful. So let's see what possible functions a council could serve:
- Advise the Board and CEO -- that's what the Advisory Board is for.
I'd be open to structuring it in such a way to allow experts from the community an easy way in.
- Make project-level decisions -- why replace direct democracy and
consensus-based processes with a representative bureaucracy? I'd rather see more project-wide votes.
- Act as project representatives to chapters and Foundation, to deal
with confidential information -- we already have the committees. We still haven't figured out a way to make them work, especially the SP-COM, which is exactly tasked with developing partnerships around the projects. I'd rather restructure these existing groups than inventing a completely new one.
- Raise awareness of the Foundation within the projects -- a group
that merely exists to raise awareness can form without the permission of the Foundation. Indeed, such informal groups are probably far less likely to cause trouble than a "Wikicouncil".
My biggest fear is that we start with something poorly defined, or with a very narrow scope, and it evolves into a decision-making structure that replaces existing community processes.Where these processes are currently dysfunctional, I don't think replacing them with a new system is likely to be a good idea. The causes of the dysfunction may only be moved to a different level.
I suggest, as an alternative, that the existing committee and subcommittee structures be reformed and surrounded with completely open "Open Interest Groups" without legal authority. I will make a specific proposal for that in the near future.
Although there has already been a massive exchange in the last 12 hours, I'm going to respond to the initial question. One problem is first mover (or first discusser) bias, and the entire conversation has gone down one way, when I think it's best to start with a fresh look.
What Damian mentioned about Wikicouncil as "representative democracy" is closest to what many Wikiretreaters in Frankfurt expressed - that a body of experienced, learned, informed, engaged and knowledgeable Wikimedians from different projects could form a body with real powers to decide on community matters and even for the purpose of being a body of electors for determinng the election of board members.
Wikicouncil folks would be responsible for things that that either we (inappropriately) appeal to the "board of trustees" to do now, or ask developers to do on the fly. It's not fair to ask Brion or Tim to be decisionmaker for community decisions from random parts of the Wikimedia universe, and it's traditionally beyond the scope of a "Board of Trustees" to be managing down to the approve/deny level of individual projects on a week to week basis. That's where a Wikicouncil would come in.
As for the argument that Wikicouncil would not be a "direct democracy," I mentioned this to Erik in Frankfurt, but I believe there is a less compelling argument for every Wikimedian having equal vote as any other Wikimedian for some value of "n" edits and "m" months of membership. The idea of every community member getting equal say as in a "true democracy" is not compelling since there is no concept of "natural citizenship" in Wikipedia - people join by choice, they self-identify for tasks, and they elevate. It is different than a citizen of a country or territory. As Damian noted, many folks don't know, nor do they care, for issues related to higher level governance or WMF board matters. They're there to write an encyclopedia, create a Wikiversity course, contribute to Commons, etc. A Wikicouncil would have the expertise of folks who have put in the time, passion, energy and thought into working with the WMF community matters, while the board would oversee the big picture matters. I believe that the Wikicouncil would clarify and solve many of the problems we have now with the scope of board and executive level matters.
In this sense, I think the idea of a Wikicouncil is quite familiar - I'd imagine a Wikicouncil would be made up most of folks you will find right now in Wikiproject leadership, chapter activities, committee involvement, and the like. It would be a formalization of what takes place already, but where there is currently no procedure or authority to act on group consensus.
That is a brief summary of what hopes I saw people had in the idea for a Wikicouncil. I cannot speak for all the folks, so I invite other folks to chime in on this.
-Andrew
On 11/20/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I write this email with much hesitation. The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council. Naturally, setting up such a structure is bound to be difficult, due to the following issues to discuss and decide
- what would be the roles of such a council ?
- would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
board members ?
- would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
- how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules,
depending on project size, languages etc...)
- ...
In short, a nest of questions.
The issue has been raised many times already. If there are people interested in setting up a proposal, please just tell me. I am not talking of "discussion" here, I am talking of "writing down a proposal". On which the board could have a look. On which the community could comment and then vote.
Anyway, if interested, jsut tell me and we can organise a little chat and a page about that. If noone interested, time will see :-)
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Although there has already been a massive exchange in the last 12 hours, I'm going to respond to the initial question. One problem is first mover (or first discusser) bias, and the entire conversation has gone down one way, when I think it's best to start with a fresh look.
What Damian mentioned about Wikicouncil as "representative democracy" is closest to what many Wikiretreaters in Frankfurt expressed - that a body of experienced, learned, informed, engaged and knowledgeable Wikimedians from different projects could form a body with real powers to decide on community matters and even for the purpose of being a body of electors for determinng the election of board members.
Wikicouncil folks would be responsible for things that that either we (inappropriately) appeal to the "board of trustees" to do now, or ask developers to do on the fly. It's not fair to ask Brion or Tim to be decisionmaker for community decisions from random parts of the Wikimedia universe, and it's traditionally beyond the scope of a "Board of Trustees" to be managing down to the approve/deny level of individual projects on a week to week basis. That's where a Wikicouncil would come in.
As for the argument that Wikicouncil would not be a "direct democracy," I mentioned this to Erik in Frankfurt, but I believe there is a less compelling argument for every Wikimedian having equal vote as any other Wikimedian for some value of "n" edits and "m" months of membership. The idea of every community member getting equal say as in a "true democracy" is not compelling since there is no concept of "natural citizenship" in Wikipedia - people join by choice, they self-identify for tasks, and they elevate. It is different than a citizen of a country or territory. As Damian noted, many folks don't know, nor do they care, for issues related to higher level governance or WMF board matters. They're there to write an encyclopedia, create a Wikiversity course, contribute to Commons, etc. A Wikicouncil would have the expertise of folks who have put in the time, passion, energy and thought into working with the WMF community matters, while the board would oversee the big picture matters. I believe that the Wikicouncil would clarify and solve many of the problems we have now with the scope of board and executive level matters.
In this sense, I think the idea of a Wikicouncil is quite familiar - I'd imagine a Wikicouncil would be made up most of folks you will find right now in Wikiproject leadership, chapter activities, committee involvement, and the like. It would be a formalization of what takes place already, but where there is currently no procedure or authority to act on group consensus.
That is a brief summary of what hopes I saw people had in the idea for a Wikicouncil. I cannot speak for all the folks, so I invite other folks to chime in on this.
-Andrew
I have not said anything because I am open to this idea being developed in previously undiscussed ways. But the above statments I do not understand. How is this in any way similar to the ways things take place already? It strikes me as anything but familiar.
I am willing to withold critiscism as people brainstorm, but I find the above remarks quite disturbing. It is a few of the worst parts of old ideas about the wikicouncil packaged as simply a formalization of current process. I am sorry these ideas are in no way a representation of the way current process works.
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link
Compare mortgage rates for today. Get up to 5 free quotes. Www2.nextag.com
On 11/20/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Although there has already been a massive exchange in the last 12 hours, I'm going to respond to the initial question. One problem is first mover (or first discusser) bias, and the entire conversation has gone down one way, when I think it's best to start with a fresh look.
What Damian mentioned about Wikicouncil as "representative democracy" is closest to what many Wikiretreaters in Frankfurt expressed - that a body of experienced, learned, informed, engaged and knowledgeable Wikimedians from different projects could form a body with real powers to decide on community matters and even for the purpose of being a body of electors for determinng the election of board members.
Wikicouncil folks would be responsible for things that that either we (inappropriately) appeal to the "board of trustees" to do now, or ask developers to do on the fly. It's not fair to ask Brion or Tim to be decisionmaker for community decisions from random parts of the Wikimedia universe, and it's traditionally beyond the scope of a "Board of Trustees" to be managing down to the approve/deny level of individual projects on a week to week basis. That's where a Wikicouncil would come in.
As for the argument that Wikicouncil would not be a "direct democracy," I mentioned this to Erik in Frankfurt, but I believe there is a less compelling argument for every Wikimedian having equal vote as any other Wikimedian for some value of "n" edits and "m" months of membership. The idea of every community member getting equal say as in a "true democracy" is not compelling since there is no concept of "natural citizenship" in Wikipedia - people join by choice, they self-identify for tasks, and they elevate. It is different than a citizen of a country or territory. As Damian noted, many folks don't know, nor do they care, for issues related to higher level governance or WMF board matters. They're there to write an encyclopedia, create a Wikiversity course, contribute to Commons, etc. A Wikicouncil would have the expertise of folks who have put in the time, passion, energy and thought into working with the WMF community matters, while the board would oversee the big picture matters. I believe that the Wikicouncil would clarify and solve many of the problems we have now with the scope of board and executive level matters.
In this sense, I think the idea of a Wikicouncil is quite familiar - I'd imagine a Wikicouncil would be made up most of folks you will find right now in Wikiproject leadership, chapter activities, committee involvement, and the like. It would be a formalization of what takes place already, but where there is currently no procedure or authority to act on group consensus.
That is a brief summary of what hopes I saw people had in the idea for a Wikicouncil. I cannot speak for all the folks, so I invite other folks to chime in on this.
-Andrew
I have not said anything because I am open to this idea being developed in previously undiscussed ways. But the above statments I do not understand. How is this in any way similar to the ways things take place already? It strikes me as anything but familiar.
I am willing to withold critiscism as people brainstorm, but I find the above remarks quite disturbing. It is a few of the worst parts of old ideas about the wikicouncil packaged as simply a formalization of current process. I am sorry these ideas are in no way a representation of the way current process works.
Maybe you can enlighten us on the "worst parts of old ideas about the Wikicouncil" because it's unclear what you're referring to.
My point is that the community coming together to decide on what the community should do is familiar, in contrast to a "top down" system of command given the questions we're facing of what role the board and the executive should take. (Anthere or another group at the retreat called it "blob" simply to get away from the historical baggage of the Wikicouncil name. Perhaps that's a good idea.) The Wikicouncil/blob idea would build on what the community already does well but would provide the formal structure to enact decisions with authority. It's no panacea, and there are no specifics yet as to the makeup of or appointment to council members.
But the concept of a group of dedicated, trusted and respected Wikimedians from the community who can thoughtfully deliberate and help lead community matters... I'm willing to hear how people view this as a bad thing.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
"worst parts of old ideas"
* being a body of electors for determinng the election of board members
This is bad idea which I have said alot about in the archives. I think it is the most useless reason for creating a council.
*the approve/deny level of individual projects on a week to week basis. That's where a Wikicouncil would come in.
Week to week decisions should stay in the hands of the communities. Not be bumped up to some interproject council.
*Wikicouncil as "representative democracy" is closest to what many Wikiretreaters in Frankfurt expressed
Given a scope I agree on; I can support the idea of a self-selecting council, I can support the idea of using existing admin, bcrat or steward structure to somehow build a council, I can grudingly support a simple direct election. I cannot support a representative election. First, I do not believe it will be effective. Second, I am certain it will be the most problamatic method to implement. The point is to get people who really want to do council-work (whatever that ends up being). Not hand out feathers for people to put in their caps.
I don't see this as the community coming together to form a council. I am sorry, I just don't see that when so much of the Wikimedia community is completely unaware of this. I just really feel this is being done backwards. You don't create a council to raise awareness. You raise awareness and then afterwards you see how all the people would like to formalize their participation. There is not much participation right now to formalize.
*But the concept of a group of dedicated, trusted and respected Wikimedians from the community who can thoughtfully deliberate and help lead community matters... I'm willing to hear how people view this as a bad thing.
Who is saying THAT is a bad thing? Why don't you just do it? Start Council meetings with an open invitation. Work at recruiting people from smaller projects. Ask people to list their top problems for a voluntary review. Issue reccomendations. Then once you know how it will work and what people want out of it ... Then get it formalized. If that happens it then it would be "a formalization of what takes place already". I think you should go for it. I think wikicouncil, as a general concept, has potential. I do not think we should trying to come up with a finished concept to write into the by-laws first, however.
Birgitte SB
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/20/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
Although there has already been a massive
exchange
in the last 12 hours, I'm going to respond to the initial
question.
One problem is first mover (or first discusser) bias, and the entire conversation has gone down one way, when I think it's best to
start
with a fresh look.
What Damian mentioned about Wikicouncil as "representative democracy" is closest to what many Wikiretreaters in
Frankfurt
expressed - that a body of experienced, learned, informed, engaged
and
knowledgeable Wikimedians from different projects could form a body with real powers to decide on community matters and even for the purpose of being a body of electors for determinng the election of board members.
Wikicouncil folks would be responsible for
things
that that either we (inappropriately) appeal to the "board of
trustees"
to do now, or ask developers to do on the fly. It's not fair to
ask
Brion or Tim to be decisionmaker for community decisions from
random
parts of the Wikimedia universe, and it's traditionally
beyond
the scope of a "Board of Trustees" to be managing down to the approve/deny level of individual projects on a week to week basis.
That's
where a Wikicouncil would come in.
As for the argument that Wikicouncil would not
be a
"direct democracy," I mentioned this to Erik in
Frankfurt,
but I believe there is a less compelling argument for every
Wikimedian
having equal vote as any other Wikimedian for some value of "n"
edits
and "m" months of membership. The idea of every community member getting equal say as in a "true democracy" is not compelling since there
is
no concept of "natural citizenship" in Wikipedia - people join
by
choice, they self-identify for tasks, and they elevate. It is different than a citizen of a country or territory. As Damian
noted,
many folks don't know, nor do they care, for issues related to
higher
level governance or WMF board matters. They're there to write an encyclopedia, create a Wikiversity course, contribute to Commons, etc.
A
Wikicouncil would have the expertise of folks who have put in the time, passion, energy and thought into working with the WMF community matters, while the board would oversee the big picture matters. I believe that the Wikicouncil would clarify and solve many of the problems we have now with the scope of board and executive level
matters.
In this sense, I think the idea of a Wikicouncil
is
quite familiar - I'd imagine a Wikicouncil would be made up most
of
folks you will find right now in Wikiproject leadership, chapter activities, committee involvement, and the like. It would be a formalization of what takes place already, but where there is currently no procedure or authority to act on group consensus.
That is a brief summary of what hopes I saw
people
had in the idea for a Wikicouncil. I cannot speak for all the folks,
so
I invite other folks to chime in on this.
-Andrew
I have not said anything because I am open to this idea being developed in previously undiscussed
ways.
But the above statments I do not understand. How
is
this in any way similar to the ways things take
place
already? It strikes me as anything but familiar.
I am willing to withold critiscism as people brainstorm, but I find the above remarks quite disturbing. It is a few of the worst parts of old ideas about the wikicouncil packaged as simply a formalization of current process. I am sorry
these
ideas are in no way a representation of the way current process works.
Maybe you can enlighten us on the "worst parts of old ideas about the Wikicouncil" because it's unclear what you're referring to.
My point is that the community coming together to decide on what the community should do is familiar, in contrast to a "top down" system of command given the questions we're facing of what role the board and the executive should take. (Anthere or another group at the retreat called it "blob" simply to get away from the historical baggage of the Wikicouncil name. Perhaps that's a good idea.) The Wikicouncil/blob idea would build on what the community already does well but would provide the formal structure to enact decisions with authority. It's no panacea, and there are no specifics yet as to the makeup of or appointment to council members.
But the concept of a group of dedicated, trusted and respected Wikimedians from the community who can thoughtfully deliberate and help lead community matters... I'm willing to hear how people view this as a bad thing.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sponsored Link
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $510k for $1,698/mo. Calculate new payment! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
Birgitte SB wrote:
"worst parts of old ideas"
- being a body of electors for determinng the election
of board members
This is bad idea which I have said alot about in the archives. I think it is the most useless reason for creating a council.
Ì would be interested to hear a summary of the reasons why it is such a bad idea. My own perspective is very different.
Rough estimate perhaps, but I would gather that the majority of editors and readers have no idea or do not care there is a Foundation. And that is understandable. That's why only about a 1000 people vote at each election.
Amongst these 1000 people, how many really understand what the Foundation is about ? I'd say very few. I have memories of editors asking us repeatedly to block this person, mediate this conflict, decide which article version was fine. And that is not at all what the Foundation is about. By basically refusing to play this role, people are asking far less now. But it took much personal effort to voluntarily decide to not look at this personal conflict and rather focus my attention on issues such as "will we have enough cash to pay next servers bill". It is quite a bit discouraging to see people consider the board is here to mediate disputes (to which the board understand very little, because it does not have the daily background good editors have), whilst they can explain the board that "no, there is no reason to hire people to do a certain job", as if they had a sort of superior knowledge and understanding of what is going on.
Generally, everyone is welcome to make comments on the other groups activities, but we should try to admit that those working on a daily basis on a specific issues, *may* know better what is needed. It is like a non-married with no children man explaining to a mother of three how she should use tissue diapers instead of disposable ones because it will save the planet and as such is more ethical :-) She can listen to him, but in the end, she is the one changing the diaper...
But well... I may be wandering a bit here...
What really bugs me in the end, is this. If we have at least 1000 people knowing about the Foundation, and caring enough to vote for its board, we have far less people actually knowing what is going on, and having an idea what the job encompasses.
I am still perplex of the past election candidates. About half of them were people I knew. People involved at various levels in the Foundation itself or in local associations. They have a minimum knowledge about the role of a board member, and at least, we know they are interested in these administratives tasks. We may appreciate their job and personnality more or less, but at least, they showed their willingness of being involved.
But about half of the candidates, I hardly know. Or did not know at all. Because they had never been beyond their local project. Never tried to get involved in making something like a press release, or helping on otrs, or giving conferences, or giving a hand at Wikimania. Some had done *nothing* at all at the organisational level. Still, they get a lot of support from equally unknown people, because they have a lot of edits, because they are nice and helpful generally. They could be elected for these qualities regardless of the qualities they could show on the board.
I can't help find that it is weird. I do not feel the board is *above* people. It is another job. It is serving the project, just as editors are serving the project, just as developers are serving the project. Editors get sysops according to the quality of their work on the project. Developers get more access according to the quality of their work as developers. But board members... basically, there is no requirement except that being appreciated/recognised by the largest number of people for their activity as editors.
I am not sure indirect elections thanks to a "wikiblob" are the best way to solve this actually. There may be different ways to fix that. But the current situation strikes me as non sustainable in the long term. Until now, choices were great in the end :-) but if we expand the board with for example 9 elected people (not very likely), I am more hesitant.
Dunno. Maybe there should be requirements on candidates to show involvment in organisational issues (but that's hard to measure). Or maybe the candidates should go through a sort of screening procedure.
Just thoughts. Do not jump on me :-)
Anthere
On 11/21/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Amongst these 1000 people, how many really understand what the Foundation is about ? I'd say very few. I have memories of editors asking us repeatedly to block this person, mediate this conflict, decide which article version was fine. And that is not at all what the Foundation is about.
Groovy so next time the deletion or not of [[Brian peppers]] will be left to the wikipedia community? Office actions will be limited to legal threats only? To those of us in the receiving end the line is somewhat less clear.
What really bugs me in the end, is this. If we have at least 1000 people knowing about the Foundation, and caring enough to vote for its board, we have far less people actually knowing what is going on, and having an idea what the job encompasses.
I am still perplex of the past election candidates. About half of them were people I knew. People involved at various levels in the Foundation itself or in local associations. They have a minimum knowledge about the role of a board member, and at least, we know they are interested in these administratives tasks. We may appreciate their job and personnality more or less, but at least, they showed their willingness of being involved.
But about half of the candidates, I hardly know. Or did not know at all. Because they had never been beyond their local project. Never tried to get involved in making something like a press release, or helping on otrs, or giving conferences, or giving a hand at Wikimania. Some had done *nothing* at all at the organisational level. Still, they get a lot of support from equally unknown people, because they have a lot of edits, because they are nice and helpful generally. They could be elected for these qualities regardless of the qualities they could show on the board.
Or perhaps they got votes precisely because they were outsiders. If we only elect people with past histories of dealing with the board will allow the board to a degree become self selecting.
I can't help find that it is weird. I do not feel the board is *above* people. It is another job. It is serving the project, just as editors are serving the project, just as developers are serving the project. Editors get sysops according to the quality of their work on the project. Developers get more access according to the quality of their work as developers. But board members... basically, there is no requirement except that being appreciated/recognised by the largest number of people for their activity as editors.
Nyet very few people if any ran on their background as editors.
I am not sure indirect elections thanks to a "wikiblob" are the best way to solve this actually. There may be different ways to fix that. But the current situation strikes me as non sustainable in the long term. Until now, choices were great in the end :-) but if we expand the board with for example 9 elected people (not very likely), I am more hesitant.
You think you would be unable to work with the kind of people the community wants in charge? Anyway it will be sometime before any further elections can reasonably be held which provides an opertunity for makeing the board better known
Dunno. Maybe there should be requirements on candidates to show involvment in organisational issues (but that's hard to measure). Or maybe the candidates should go through a sort of screening procedure.
While that may be best practice in Iran I see no need to do that here.
geni wrote:
On 11/21/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Amongst these 1000 people, how many really understand what the Foundation is about ? I'd say very few. I have memories of editors asking us repeatedly to block this person, mediate this conflict, decide which article version was fine. And that is not at all what the Foundation is about.
Groovy so next time the deletion or not of [[Brian peppers]] will be left to the wikipedia community? Office actions will be limited to legal threats only? To those of us in the receiving end the line is somewhat less clear.
Maybe you are confusing board and staff here.
What really bugs me in the end, is this. If we have at least 1000 people knowing about the Foundation, and caring enough to vote for its board, we have far less people actually knowing what is going on, and having an idea what the job encompasses.
I am still perplex of the past election candidates. About half of them were people I knew. People involved at various levels in the Foundation itself or in local associations. They have a minimum knowledge about the role of a board member, and at least, we know they are interested in these administratives tasks. We may appreciate their job and personnality more or less, but at least, they showed their willingness of being involved.
But about half of the candidates, I hardly know. Or did not know at all. Because they had never been beyond their local project. Never tried to get involved in making something like a press release, or helping on otrs, or giving conferences, or giving a hand at Wikimania. Some had done *nothing* at all at the organisational level. Still, they get a lot of support from equally unknown people, because they have a lot of edits, because they are nice and helpful generally. They could be elected for these qualities regardless of the qualities they could show on the board.
Or perhaps they got votes precisely because they were outsiders. If we only elect people with past histories of dealing with the board will allow the board to a degree become self selecting.
As long as we have an election system of some type, I feel there is little chance of that happening.
I can't help find that it is weird. I do not feel the board is *above* people. It is another job. It is serving the project, just as editors are serving the project, just as developers are serving the project. Editors get sysops according to the quality of their work on the project. Developers get more access according to the quality of their work as developers. But board members... basically, there is no requirement except that being appreciated/recognised by the largest number of people for their activity as editors.
Nyet very few people if any ran on their background as editors.
If you say so...
I am not sure indirect elections thanks to a "wikiblob" are the best way to solve this actually. There may be different ways to fix that. But the current situation strikes me as non sustainable in the long term. Until now, choices were great in the end :-) but if we expand the board with for example 9 elected people (not very likely), I am more hesitant.
You think you would be unable to work with the kind of people the community wants in charge?
That comment makes no sense since I was myself elected. Afaik, I can work with Erik. I have already shared workloads with Oscar. And I do not think I ever had any trouble with Mindspillage. I did work with Kelly (something not everyone could claim being able to). Etc... But whether I am able to work with this person or not is irrelevant. I will not be forever on the board. I will quit it probably sooner than later. But I hope the Foundaiton will be there for many years to come, along with a network of more and more numerous chapters. I will have given at least 3 years of my time to the Foundation. I hope that this work is not given in vain.
Anyway it will be sometime before any
further elections can reasonably be held which provides an opertunity for makeing the board better known
Dunno. Maybe there should be requirements on candidates to show involvment in organisational issues (but that's hard to measure). Or maybe the candidates should go through a sort of screening procedure.
While that may be best practice in Iran I see no need to do that here.
Uh. Look again. In all good faith.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2006
In France, we do a screening for presidential elections. Contrariwise to the USA, we have direct elections. But our candidates must receive the support of at least 500 political persona before having their candidacy accepted.
ant
On 11/22/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Maybe you are confusing board and staff here.
yes an no without board authority staff would have a somewhat different role.
As long as we have an election system of some type, I feel there is little chance of that happening.
The board can to a large degree controls who has dealings with it. If you limit elections to people who have had past roles in the area around the board then the baord can pretty much limit elections to insiders only.
If you say so...
There would have been little point if you consider that most of them had solid editing records so there was no way to use an editing record to put yourself appart for another candidates.
That comment makes no sense since I was myself elected. Afaik, I can work with Erik. I have already shared workloads with Oscar. And I do not think I ever had any trouble with Mindspillage. I did work with Kelly (something not everyone could claim being able to). Etc... But whether I am able to work with this person or not is irrelevant. I will not be forever on the board. I will quit it probably sooner than later. But I hope the Foundaiton will be there for many years to come, along with a network of more and more numerous chapters. I will have given at least 3 years of my time to the Foundation. I hope that this work is not given in vain.
Even if there are 9 places (I tend to feel that would be getting a bit too big) the comunity will elect the people it wants. If you belive that the people the comunity wants are a problem then the problem is very serious indeed.
Uh. Look again. In all good faith.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_candidates_2006
In France, we do a screening for presidential elections. Contrariwise to the USA, we have direct elections. But our candidates must receive the support of at least 500 political persona before having their candidacy accepted.
That isn't so much screening as haveing nomination procedures. It's bottem up rather than top down and meant to keep out frivilious candidates only. It does not mean that the goverment can hold any sway over who is elected. you could not use it to inforce "people who have had dealings with the area around the board only" if the community decided to elect someone else.
However such a system tends to be buracratic and requires effort to run and thus should not be adopted until there are too many candidates running (no I don't know what too many is other than 60+ probably is too many)
Oh for the love of God... You're all doing it again!
I remember when the committees were being set up nobody (!) knew exactly what they were supposed to do. They had to organize themselves after 'incorporation'. That is a very wrong approach, IMO. Same thing is happening now all over again.
So just stop for a second, OK?
I suggest we define issues and problems that would need coordination/handling on meta-project level *first* and then try to think of a way to deal with them. It may well be that some can be solved simply by using the structures in place. For those that remain without even the slightest idea on how to fix them we can move to actually create something entirely new.
One example that comes to my mind right away is this: * policy on sitenotice display (mandatory fundraising notices? or is this up to each project?)
This could simply be ruled by WMF but would have little or no impact on projects which are not represented on the foundation level (this list for example). A Wikicouncil ruling would probably work better.
Try to think along those lines.
And *please* do the defining on-wiki. That's why we have meta for.
Note that I am a big fan of the Wikicouncil idea (i.e. a representative body of some sort). But at the same time I believe that this is not going to work properly unless we start out with the "whats" and not the "hows".
I'm going to bed. *yawn*
?ukasz Garczewski wrote:
I suggest we define issues and problems that would need coordination/handling on meta-project level *first* and then try to think of a way to deal with them. It may well be that some can be solved simply by using the structures in place. For those that remain without even the slightest idea on how to fix them we can move to actually create something entirely new.
One example that comes to my mind right away is this:
- policy on sitenotice display (mandatory fundraising notices? or is
this up to each project?)
This could simply be ruled by WMF but would have little or no impact on projects which are not represented on the foundation level (this list for example). A Wikicouncil ruling would probably work better.
Try to think along those lines.
And *please* do the defining on-wiki. That's why we have meta for.
Note that I am a big fan of the Wikicouncil idea (i.e. a representative body of some sort). But at the same time I believe that this is not going to work properly unless we start out with the "whats" and not the "hows".
Your response is remarkable for being totally unrealistic, mostly because it doesn't scale for such a large group.
There are a lot of very good ideas being presented in different places. Each person raises issues in the place where he most hangs out: a mailing list, a talk page, a village pump, meta, etc. There are many of these on different projects, and in different languages. Each of these pages is populated by different segment of the population. No-one can keep up to them all, even if he limits himself to his own language.
The "hows" are the problem that needs to be addressed. A proposal can be made on this list where all responses are very positive that a great idea has been raised. (Worse still, if there are no responses at all; does that mean that everyone agrees? I doubt it; more likely is that nobody has the energy to apply the thought that the idea requires.) If a dozen people respond favorably to an idea, and no-one objects how do we take it to the next step? Who takes it to the next step? There is no guarantee that if the same idea had been raised in another forum it would have received the same support. The "how" really is important, and a bigger challenge than the "what".
Ec
On 20/11/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
*But the concept of a group of dedicated, trusted and respected Wikimedians from the community who can thoughtfully deliberate and help lead community matters... I'm willing to hear how people view this as a bad thing.
Who is saying THAT is a bad thing? Why don't you just do it? Start Council meetings with an open invitation. Work at recruiting people from smaller projects. Ask people to list their top problems for a voluntary review. Issue reccomendations. Then once you know how it will work and what people want out of it ... Then get it formalized. If that happens it then it would be "a formalization of what takes place already". I think you should go for it. I think wikicouncil, as a general concept, has potential. I do not think we should trying to come up with a finished concept to write into the by-laws first, however.
Concur entirely. If people feel a cross-project body like this would be useful, organise one; grab some people from here and there, sit them down, and get them started. If it seems to fill a need, and it works effectively, we can write it into the formal system. If not... eh, it's never going to do any harm as an informal body.
I am happy to work on the idea if required.
- what would be the roles of such a council ?
Some form of body which encourages communication between projects could be useful. Projects often have different ways of doing things and it could be useful to share these with others. The council could also represent the community to the board itself. Major issues could be raised with a councillor, bought to council and then raised with the board.
Wiki council could also serve as the last resort in the dispute resolution process (when Arbcom fails).
What I would not want it to become is some massive bureaucracy where there are a select few which have power over the community, it should represent the community's interests and not be some form of governance.
- would that council vote the people to become Wikimedia Foundation
board members ?
Hell no, there is nothing wrong with the current method of community voting for select positions. Doing this would remind me far too much of the electoral college system.
- would this council become a sort of goverment of the project ?
See above.
- how would people be added to this council (and along with which rules,
depending on project size, languages etc...)
I would suggest a minimum of 2 reps per project with a maximum of something. In between some formula would need to be made for "proportional representation". Positions would be filled by the community by some form of vote (yes I know voting is evil but it works)
Cheers, Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org