"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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/06, Birgitte SB
<birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)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(a)wikimedia.org
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
$510k for $1,698/mo. Calculate new payment!