hi all,
i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization. i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.
in my opinion: 1. the only way this organization, its projects and mission, its vitality and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision. 2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is mandatory. 3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at all. 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts, but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the who-does-what, which is not of my concern now. also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
oscar
On 6/9/06, oscar oscar.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
hi all,
i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization. i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.
in my opinion:
- the only way this organization, its projects and mission, its vitality
and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision. 2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is mandatory. 3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at all. 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts, but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the who-does-what, which is not of my concern now. also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
oscar
I was asking today of certain people if there was any document that formally set out the relationship between the Foundation and the individual projects operating under it. I have been told that there is no such document. I'm sorely tempted to work on that document, which would set out what the Foundation does for the projects, what the Foundation expects from each project, and how the projects will insure that the Foundation is looking after their interests.
Some other issues came out of that discussion -- such as our precarious copyright situation -- and those also need to be addressed.
It seems that Oscar's on a similar tack here.
Kelly
On 10-jun-2006, at 2:44, oscar wrote:
- the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of
the executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to do", if you get my meaning)
I'm sorry, but I don't.
Plus I don't understand why "this whole organization, its projects and mission, its vitality and appeal", would collapse if the separation "between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision" would not be implemented as strict as you would like it to be.
, and in general not deal with the projects at all. 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
Again I don't understand why such a strict separation should be necessary.
i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts,
I think that would be a good idea.
So far all you have come up with was "I want a strict separation". You can't convince people if you don't make clear why such a strict separation should be necessary in the first place.
but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized,
You mean *should* be organized, in order to prevent a total collapse, right? ("the only way this organization (...) will survive").
IMHO rather strong words and little explanation, Oscar.
Erik vdMb aka Muijz
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 08:55:23AM +0200, Erik van den Muijzenberg wrote:
On 10-jun-2006, at 2:44, oscar wrote:
Again I don't understand why such a strict separation should be necessary.
What's your proposal, Muijz? :)
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On 11-jun-2006, at 2:47, Kim Bruning wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 08:55:23AM +0200, Erik van den Muijzenberg wrote:
Again I don't understand why such a strict separation should be necessary.
What's your proposal, Muijz? :)
Well, I probably missed yours then? :-)
I'm a newbie to this list, so I'll ask questions first, clueless as they might seem to be. And maybe come up with a proposal later on.
Erik vdMb aka Muijz
on Sun. 11 June - Erik van den Muijzenberg wrote in part:
I'm a newbie to this list, so I'll ask questions first, clueless as they might seem to be. And maybe come up with a proposal later on.
Erik vdMb aka Muijz _______________________________________________
Erik! - I'm a newbie too! And judging from your impressive email address, you certainly have to be a more qualified participant than I. Anyway, I was under the impression that boldness was encouraged. Perhaps the remainder of this email will put that tenant to the test and at the same time merit your sincerely sought commentary as well. So -like you- I start with a question.
Isn't "a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" a sufficiently gallant goal to go far?? I submit that if one thinks about it, a lousy 1% of said knowledge would unavoidably result in world peace and the elimination of poverty. Yet, in this instance, it's not at all insane to shoot for an impossible goal, but instead - wholly inspiring. Yet in stark contrast to any real respect for a grand knowledge quest, there seem to be an overriding concern for things like copyright infringement, libel, and pornography. But lets be just a bit real here - OK? I mean, the sum of *ALL* human knowledge is clearly nothing for the (freedom hating) squeamish! How could such grim enlightenment avoid bitterly breaking illusion loving minds? And how is it possible to even imagine approaching your goals without unleashing an irrational world of resentment. You're barely out of the gate on this great venture, yet you've already put your head under the boot of the archenemy of truth & knowledge - the state. How can you serve both at the same time? Perpetually appeasing government only makes a complete sham of your proclaimed goal. Of course, in all practicality, very few will ever notice notice any farce. The easiest way to maintain a semblance of integrity is to simply & truthfully state your real goal as "... the sum of politically permitted pseudo knowledge."
Alternately, if you decide to be true to your original idea in more than just lip service, it may not be too late to do so. First and always, you'd need to distance your core knowledge bases just as morally far from coercive terrestrial jurisdictions as possible. This may translate to new innovations in P2P technology plus extending other realms of the virtual frontier. A big deal should be made about this being a wide open knowledge/data source with crude uncensored content; which is hence likely to be inappropriate, unreliable, and offensive for unprotected users. (Although this sounds terrible, in reality your material would actually meet and exceed anything to date in both quantity and quality.) In order to satisfy both huge traffic demands and a multiplicity of special censoring needs (for schools, local jurisdictions, etc.) third party prettifiers would be welcomed to provide such services and accommodate sensitivities. Indeed, a spin-off of WMF with a portion of its server farms could well become just such a service. Consequently, the the core knowledge/data bases would stress securing, creation & development of content plus powerful robust interfacing to the third party distributors (not heavy traffic to end users).
Obviously anything that could possibly endanger accumulating the sum of all human knowledge (like a WP:OFFICE) would need to be eliminated or spun-off. The UNIX strategy is an attractive model; clean autonomous modules robustly interacting while executing their specific duties to perfection.
So if one believes your stated goal is sufficiently worthy then stick to that and give up the extra distraction of leaping through the status quo's endless obstacle course of insane hoops. There are plenty (freedom blind entities) out there who are much more suitable for such silliness. Haplessly there is noting easier than to ignore these kinds of essential meta-realities. Equally unfortunate is the inevitability that follows. No CEO nor board games will change the fact that your freedom serving mission is infeasible when immersed in an inhospitable coercion controlled world. ESCAPE!
Z.Clark
--- Zack Clark meta@world1tours.com wrote:
Isn't "a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" a sufficiently gallant goal to go far?? I submit that if one thinks about it, a lousy 1% of said knowledge would unavoidably result in world peace and the elimination of poverty. Yet, in this instance, it's not at all insane to shoot for an impossible goal, but instead - wholly inspiring. Yet in stark contrast to any real respect for a grand knowledge quest, there seem to be an overriding concern for things like copyright infringement, libel, and pornography. But lets be just a bit real here - OK? I mean, the sum of *ALL* human knowledge is clearly nothing for the (freedom hating) squeamish! How could such grim enlightenment avoid bitterly breaking illusion loving minds? And how is it possible to even imagine approaching your goals without unleashing an irrational world of resentment. You're barely out of the gate on this great venture, yet you've already put your head under the boot of the archenemy of truth & knowledge - the state. How can you serve both at the same time? Perpetually appeasing government only makes a complete sham of your proclaimed goal. Of course, in all practicality, very few will ever notice notice any farce. The easiest way to maintain a semblance of integrity is to simply & truthfully state your real goal as "... the sum of politically permitted pseudo knowledge."
I think you are confusing information with knowledge. An interesting definition from the the Free On-Line Definition of Computing is:
"If information is data plus meaning then knowledge is information plus processing."
Not all information is knowledge. Knowledge cannot be copyrighted by any state. Libelous material is a subset of information that is unverified, which is already against local policies. Unverified information is not knowledge. From the standpoint of what is knowledge, it does not matter at all what courts may or may not decide is libel. Policies against censorship already exist although it is a constant source of contraversy. Such contraversy is simply to be expected with an open project no matter what the goals are.
By ensuring the Foundation is both legal and respectable (as in responsible not censored!) does not in any way make a sham of the stated goal "a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" I personally do not discern any lack of integrity in manner that WMF has gone about this goal in a law-abiding manner.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I have quite a large number of opinions on this. There needs to be an executive in place with the subcommittees which can act relatively autonomously but are responsible to the executive. At the same time I would like to see us have Wikicouncil, where people from the projects meet to discuss them and issues arising out of them.
Wikicouncil would then have someone who reported back to the executive and again be responsible to them.
The fact is, Joe and Joanne editor couldn't really care less how the organisation is ran so long as everything works. The organisation needs to be ran by experts with a small amount of accountability to the user base (which I feel Wikicouncil would achieve) Cheers, Nathan
oscar wrote:
hi all,
i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization. i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.
in my opinion:
- the only way this organization, its projects and mission, its vitality
and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision. 2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is mandatory. 3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at all. 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts, but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the who-does-what, which is not of my concern now. also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
oscar _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/10/06, Nathan Carter magnaboy@westnet.com.au wrote:
I have quite a large number of opinions on this. There needs to be an executive in place with the subcommittees which can act relatively autonomously but are responsible to the executive. At the same time I would like to see us have Wikicouncil, where people from the projects meet to discuss them and issues arising out of them.
Wikicouncil would then have someone who reported back to the executive and again be responsible to them.
The fact is, Joe and Joanne editor couldn't really care less how the organisation is ran so long as everything works. The organisation needs to be ran by experts with a small amount of accountability to the user base (which I feel Wikicouncil would achieve)
I've long believed that we should have a council/assembly/etc. composed of representatives selected by each project; this body should elect, at the very least, some portion of the board of directors.
Kelly
Kelly Martin schrieb:
I've long believed that we should have a council/assembly/etc. composed of representatives selected by each project; this body should elect, at the very least, some portion of the board of directors.
The page is on meta since ages: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Maybe we'll get it started one time.
greetings, elian
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/10/06, Nathan Carter magnaboy@westnet.com.au wrote:
I have quite a large number of opinions on this. There needs to be an executive in place with the subcommittees which can act relatively autonomously but are responsible to the executive. At the same time I would like to see us have Wikicouncil, where people from the projects meet to discuss them and issues arising out of them.
Wikicouncil would then have someone who reported back to the executive and again be responsible to them.
The fact is, Joe and Joanne editor couldn't really care less how the organisation is ran so long as everything works. The organisation needs to be ran by experts with a small amount of accountability to the user base (which I feel Wikicouncil would achieve)
I've long believed that we should have a council/assembly/etc. composed of representatives selected by each project; this body should elect, at the very least, some portion of the board of directors.
Kelly
I agree there should be a Wikicouncil setup which has an influence on the executive, but I do not believe that the executive needs to be elected by the "community". Sure, the community may have a little influence but we need to remember that the community is a seperate entity to the foundation itself. Cheers, Nathan.
I think Oscar's idea is really great, because it mixes representativity (an elected board) and efficiency (a designated CEO and a perennial administrative staff). The best proposal I have heard. I would like people against his proposition express their arguments.
Traroth
----- Message d'origine ---- De : oscar oscar.wiki@gmail.com À : Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Envoyé le : Samedi, 10 Juin 2006, 2h44mn 15s Objet : [Foundation-l] on (re)organizing wikimedia
hi all,
i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization. i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.
in my opinion: 1. the only way this organization, its projects and mission, its vitality and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision. 2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is mandatory. 3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at all. 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts, but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the who-does-what, which is not of my concern now. also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
oscar _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general to formulate much of an argument for or against. I will say I am against the Wikicouncil as described on Meta. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil It would be far too large to be effective. I can't see how a group of more than 20 people max could be useful in an advisory role. And I have no idea what "supervision of the projects" actually entails. Any duties I can think of that could be considered supervision need a group no larger than 13.
I don't mean to imply oscar's ideas have no merit. We certainly need to understand where some boundaries are between different roles. I am not sure why strict seperation is so neccessary. And I guess I need oscar to define what he means by
*executive and project-related responsibilities
*supervise the projects
Before I can really comment, although I can say my current impression is negative.
Birgitte SB
--- Traroth traroth@yahoo.fr wrote:
I think Oscar's idea is really great, because it mixes representativity (an elected board) and efficiency (a designated CEO and a perennial administrative staff). The best proposal I have heard. I would like people against his proposition express their arguments.
Traroth
----- Message d'origine ---- De : oscar oscar.wiki@gmail.com À : Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Envoyé le : Samedi, 10 Juin 2006, 2h44mn 15s Objet : [Foundation-l] on (re)organizing wikimedia
hi all,
i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization. i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.
in my opinion:
- the only way this organization, its projects and
mission, its vitality and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision. 2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is mandatory. 3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at all. 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts, but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the who-does-what, which is not of my concern now. also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
oscar _______________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/11/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general to formulate much of an argument for or against. I will say I am against the Wikicouncil as described on Meta. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil It would be far too large to be effective. I can't see how a group of more than 20 people max could be useful in an advisory role.
Yes, the only point to a large body as described in the Wikicouncil proposal is to act as an assembly or congress; in an organization such as Wikimedia such an assembly would normally be the final governing authority for the organization, would elect the board and the officers, and be the legal source of authority for the board and officers to act. I would not object to Wikimedia moving to a congress of delegates as the final governing authority, but I suspect such an idea would be unacceptable at this time to the current Board. In any case, the entity described by the Wikicouncil proposal has no authority at all and I see no point in it existing, except perhaps to throw a nice party at Wikimania.
As you state, an advisory body will function better at a smaller size. I'm not sure that we're at the state where an advisory board would be useful, though.
Kelly
On 6/12/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general to It would be far too large to be effective. I can't see how a group of more than 20 people max could be useful in an advisory role. And I have no idea what "supervision of the projects" actually entails. Any duties I can think of that could be considered supervision need a group no larger than 13.
It can be representatives of the largest part(s), like the English Wikipedia is the largest and perhaps most active, and most of active members of this mailinglist are its regular, and I agree it will be efficient, but at the same time it can happen such body of representatives fail to representative the broader population of Wikimedia project editors (like Enlgish Wikipedia editors are less than the sum of editors of all other projects). If it aims to reflect voices of users in a systematical scheme, not as well current sporadic and relying on personal relationships, it would make a sense. But I'm afraid it isn't at all the representatives of the entire Wikimedia project community, neglecting the majority of editors who are not involved into foundation activities.
--- Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general
to
It would be far too large to be effective. I
can't
see how a group of more than 20 people max could
be
useful in an advisory role. And I have no idea
what
"supervision of the projects" actually entails.
Any
duties I can think of that could be considered supervision need a group no larger than 13.
It can be representatives of the largest part(s), like the English Wikipedia is the largest and perhaps most active, and most of active members of this mailinglist are its regular, and I agree it will be efficient, but at the same time it can happen such body of representatives fail to representative the broader population of Wikimedia project editors (like Enlgish Wikipedia editors are less than the sum of editors of all other projects). If it aims to reflect voices of users in a systematical scheme, not as well current sporadic and relying on personal relationships, it would make a sense. But I'm afraid it isn't at all the representatives of the entire Wikimedia project community, neglecting the majority of editors who are not involved into foundation activities.
-- Aphaia aka Kizu Naoko email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
I certainly don't want to see an advisory group of 50% en.WP editors! However such token represntation as proposed in the Wikicouncil plan would be of little practical benifit. It would be better to appoint (or nominate a short list for election) an advisory board with an purposeful effort to include editors from both all types of sister projects and communities of different sizes while keeping the number of people within reason. Another option is to encourage different projects to each form their own sort of council and each can endorse ideas or write proposals with the unique goals of each project in mind. Those are just two rough ideas, there are certainly many other alternatives.
I believe it is most important that the input of small languages and non-pedia projects is taken into conderation in any such advisory council. Not that every editor is given proportional representation. The latter would either be too much dominated by en.WP or else too large to offer useful and timely advice. Honestly the concerns of en.WP are being heard every day and would still be heard if they had not a single seat on such a council (I am not suggesting that!). The real need for such a council is to find out the needs/opinions of the smaller projects/lang. communities which are not currently being heard.
Birgitte SB
P.S. If anyone believes the needs/concerns of en.WP are not being currently responded to by the WMF, please correct me now.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Birgitte SB wrote:
I certainly don't want to see an advisory group of 50% en.WP editors! However such token represntation as proposed in the Wikicouncil plan would be of little practical benifit.
The one practical value of "Wikicouncil" that I see beyond simply choosing board members or charter changes (presumably a useful funciton for such a body) would also be as a source to draw upon for the various committees that have been established for the WMF. I have been a very vocal critic over how the membership of these committees have been established, mainly because they are insular in their constitution and I believe they will have a strong anti-Wikimedia user bias, with strong hints of eliteism. If instead you say that you must be an elected member of the Wikicouncil, that gives a non-discriminatory approach to joining up, and permits newer (read smaller) projects from also participating as well.
This isn't to say that the wikicouncil proposal doesn't have problems, but I think the basic idea does have some merit. It also gives a way to "grow" board members, so that you can find people with both the leadership skills and the knowledge of Wikimedia projects that would be developed rather than making the leap to board member all at once. This would be assuming that you could follow the path of admin/bureaucrat/steward/community representative/board member of increasing responsibilities if you wanted to become involved. The other approach is to be a famous celebrity or have significant outside accomplishments (like being a former U.S. President, as an example) before you are appointed to the WMF board. I don't like this type of token board members, even though it is commonly done on other non-profit organizations. A third approach is to be a successful and well-liked professional staff member of the WMF. I think that some board positions should be reserved for this sort of person, if only to balance the board in its attitudes.
Birgitte SB wrote:
I certainly don't want to see an advisory group of 50% en.WP editors! However such token represntation as proposed in the Wikicouncil plan would be of little practical benifit. It would be better to appoint (or nominate a short list for election) an advisory board with an purposeful effort to include editors from both all types of sister projects and communities of different sizes while keeping the number of people within reason. Another option is to encourage different projects to each form their own sort of council and each can endorse ideas or write proposals with the unique goals of each project in mind. Those are just two rough ideas, there are certainly many other alternatives.
I believe it is most important that the input of small languages and non-pedia projects is taken into conderation in any such advisory council. Not that every editor is given proportional representation. The latter would either be too much dominated by en.WP or else too large to offer useful and timely advice. Honestly the concerns of en.WP are being heard every day and would still be heard if they had not a single seat on such a council (I am not suggesting that!). The real need for such a council is to find out the needs/opinions of the smaller projects/lang. communities which are not currently being heard.
Wikicouncil would certainly be a possible body to oversee overall day-to-day operations. It could function in addition to a governing Board AND and advisory board.
A governing Board somewhat larger than the present Board would have the reponsibility of safeguarding assets and core policy, as well as fulfilling legal responsibilities. It should not be dominated by any one nation. A majority should be elected (directly or indirectly) by the community, but the community should not have 75% of the positions on the Board. The remainder of the Board could be appointed in some suitable way. A full 75% of the Board members would still be required to change core values.
An advisory Board could be of indefinite size, completely appointed, and composed of eminent persons from within and without the community. Its function would be simply to advise, and it would have no decision making powers.
A Wikicouncil needs to represent three broad groups: languages, countries and overall projects. It needs to avoid domination by any one group or sub-group, and at the same time it needs to avoid becoming so large as to become unwieldy. The size of the Wikicouncil can be open-ended but still include policies to slow the growth.
Groups and sub-groups all need a large degree of autonomy, and a higher level of governance should have its right to impose policies clearly restricted. The recommended governance scheme for sub-groups needs to vary in relation to the size of the group.
For countries it would be easy to suggest one seat for each national chapter as the initial model, but this could change as the chapter idea becomes more developed. Currently there is still only a handful of chapters concentrated in countries with functional education systems and internet access, and no account is taken of the size or etnic diversities of countries. I think that issues such as whether US representation should be allocated to states or judicial districts or whether Belgium should have separate French and Flemish representatives will need to wait for a later stage of development.
For projects, size matters. Number of articles is an easy metric to work with for the sake of these comments. A metric that also reflects active membership and the number of megabytes of data in a project may be more accurate if it can be developed. I could allow for the fact that Wiktionay finds stubs perfectly acceptable, or in Wikisource it could cope with decisions of whether a given book is all on one page or divided into chapters.
Basing this on the completely arbitrary metric of 25,000 main namespace articles in a language on any project with that many articles would be guaranteed one seat on the Wikicouncil. Smaller languages within that project would be able to combine their numbers to receive one seat for each 25,000 articles. Larger languages within a project on a sliding, perhaps logarithmic, scale.
Ec
<snip my desire for an alternative to a proportionally representative Wikicouncil>
Wikicouncil would certainly be a possible body to oversee overall day-to-day operations. It could function in addition to a governing Board AND and advisory board.
< snip governing Board >
<snip advisory Board>
A Wikicouncil needs to represent three broad groups: languages, countries and overall projects. It needs to avoid domination by any one group or sub-group, and at the same time it needs to avoid becoming so large as to become unwieldy. The size of the Wikicouncil can be open-ended but still include policies to slow the growth.
Compare this paragraph with your openinig sentance: "Wikicouncil would certainly be a possible body to oversee overall day-to-day operations." I am sorry but I do not believe all this would be effective. I doubt it is possible to actually assemble a group as described above, and I am confident such a group could not oversee day-to-day operations.
Groups and sub-groups all need a large degree of autonomy, and a higher level of governance should have its right to impose policies clearly restricted. The recommended governance scheme for sub-groups needs to vary in relation to the size of the group.
For countries it would be easy to suggest one seat for each national chapter as the initial model, but this could change as the chapter idea becomes more developed. Currently there is still only a handful of chapters concentrated in countries with functional education systems and internet access, and no account is taken of the size or etnic diversities of countries. I think that issues such as whether US representation should be allocated to states or judicial districts or whether Belgium should have separate French and Flemish representatives will need to wait for a later stage of development.
For projects, size matters. Number of articles is an easy metric to work with for the sake of these comments. A metric that also reflects active membership and the number of megabytes of data in a project may be more accurate if it can be developed. I could allow for the fact that Wiktionay finds stubs perfectly acceptable, or in Wikisource it could cope with decisions of whether a given book is all on one page or divided into chapters.
Basing this on the completely arbitrary metric of 25,000 main namespace articles in a language on any project with that many articles would be guaranteed one seat on the Wikicouncil. Smaller languages within that project would be able to combine their numbers to receive one seat for each 25,000 articles. Larger languages within a project on a sliding, perhaps logarithmic, scale.
These paragraghs describe a very complicated logistical mess. And this is just about assigning seats! Think about how what the actual elections would entail. Every sub-group must decide on citizenship; are dual citizens allowed; how far can one subproject's policy in this regard veer from the median of the rest. Then the elections must actually be conducted and counted, but those editiors who normally count such things will probably be running so who may perform the duties of striking sockpuppets etc. Then we must find election auditors with appropriate language skills, or we can take it all at face value and hope the whole first session of the Wikicouncil isn't overrun by accusations of false elections. After all that, we will have a WikiCouncil which I believe will be ineffective. And honestly, it will be mostly made up of people who are buearacrats on a sub-project.
I must ask is proportional representation really worth the effort? Even if the effort is half what I believe it will be, do you really believe the results will be surprising, that these representatives will not be current leaders within projects? If you do not believe the effort is a problem in itself, how do you feel about how much time it will take to execute these elections?
Is it not possible to gather a diversity of viewpoints and leaders with any easier or more effective method? Do the editors really need to be "represented" or do they just need to have a designated person (or group) to approach with larger questions?
Please think for a moment about the origins of proportional representation. It was designed to make sure everyone had a voice in a situation where communication was a real problem. I mean people had to travel great distances (without airplanes!) to meet and communicate. It is the lack of *organized* communication which I believe is our problem. Not the lack of ability. After all we are speaking about *wikis* here. Every single editor (barring language) is able to communicate directly with a Board Member if they so chose. The development of proportional representation in order to give editors of a *wiki* their "voice" in these matters is one of the largest wastes of effort I have ever heard of. I am sorry to be so critical of ideas many of you have been working a long time on, but the more details I hear of this model the more confident I am that it would be buearacracy for its own sake. What we need is a simple organization that allows the leaders from sub-projects to collaborate with one another and with the Foundation. We need a "chain of accountabilty" to ensure problems are solved or passed on up to until they reach the board (with the research already done!). We do not need a goverment. I think we could build something workable from the base of the Apache model. I am sure there are also other models we could work from instead. However, I do not believe a parlamentary goverment is one of them.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org