All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was in essence a working group. My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill them.
----- Original Message ---- From: Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:38:02 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board-announcement: Board Restructuring
2008/4/29 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
First, the Board sent the ball on Wikicouncil back to the Community, then the Board made community elected seats a minority.
? It was not exactly clear that the Wikicouncil concept *as presented to the Board at that time* was something that was supported by "the Community" at large. They have expressed support for the concept, but not that particular instantiation. I am sure that if they had accepted it there would probably be *more* outrage! (possibly directed slightly differently)
Secondly seats for community members are still a majority: 5 + Jimmy. If a vote goes 5-5, it fails. So there is no "power bloc of outsiders". If you are really concerned that "the chapters" are going to somehow choose the wrong people, then why not pipe up with suggestions about what "the right way" would be.
Because of our principles, we attract a lot of people who are suspicious of authoritarian structures. This move seems kind of authoritarian.
Yeah, so getting outraged by default - regardless of the merit of a proposal - is definitely a good move!
Put it this way, throwing a hissy fit is not a good argument that the community should have more input. We should demonstrate we deserve more input by making that input reasoned and sensible.
Clearly, no one is too happy about surprises like this. Florence has apologised, more input from the other Board members would be nice.
regards Brianna
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was in essence a working group. My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill them.
I would infact be curious to know if that was really the case.
While I agree with Lodewijk that it would be useful for individual board members to be open about thier individual views on the matter, equally I have to ask Lodewijk, EC and company, if they would be prepared to present to the public what the proposal they offered to the board (and was not acted upon directly by them) was like?
So far we have had an interpretation by Jimbo about the restructuring (an interpretation that does not clearly express what his preference was within the internal discussions, if any). And we have had an interpretation by Mike Snow, somewhat circumspectly expressed, of both the demurral of direct Board involvement with setting up the council, and the restructuring of the board, again with fairly light amount of personal views revealed.
Antheres opinions have revealed that some of the discussion was somewhat vexing, but even she hasn't really given specifics, leaving us to try and read between the lines what her own views might have been like, though promising to speak more on the matter later, and clearly encouraging the others on the board to give their side of the matter.
And while the people who were on the private group to explore the setting up of the council have demanded public explanations, they haven't themselves gone first and revealed what they presented to the board, or how their proposal was prepared, what conflicting views were balanced and how.
Somehow the situation reminds me of a poker game with both players asking the other guy to show their cards first.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
I was on the group.
We did not even start the discussions.
The only thing we had was the resolution proposed by Lodewijk. It was published, both here and on meta. I am sure you read it.
The expectation was we could be a group researching a possibility to establish the VC, and, in case we would conclude the VC should be established, come up with some recommendations how it could function and draft some initial policy on VC.
Of course we would be prepared to present the results of the research in public. Even more, there have been suggestions on this list (not supported by me) that we debate actually in public.
The board has made it explicit it is not interested in this research.
So far, this has been the end of the story.
Cheers Yaroslav
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was in essence a working group. My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill them.
I would infact be curious to know if that was really the case.
While I agree with Lodewijk that it would be useful for individual board members to be open about thier individual views on the matter, equally I have to ask Lodewijk, EC and company, if they would be prepared to present to the public what the proposal they offered to the board (and was not acted upon directly by them) was like?
So far we have had an interpretation by Jimbo about the restructuring (an interpretation that does not clearly express what his preference was within the internal discussions, if any). And we have had an interpretation by Mike Snow, somewhat circumspectly expressed, of both the demurral of direct Board involvement with setting up the council, and the restructuring of the board, again with fairly light amount of personal views revealed.
Antheres opinions have revealed that some of the discussion was somewhat vexing, but even she hasn't really given specifics, leaving us to try and read between the lines what her own views might have been like, though promising to speak more on the matter later, and clearly encouraging the others on the board to give their side of the matter.
And while the people who were on the private group to explore the setting up of the council have demanded public explanations, they haven't themselves gone first and revealed what they presented to the board, or how their proposal was prepared, what conflicting views were balanced and how.
Somehow the situation reminds me of a poker game with both players asking the other guy to show their cards first.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, There is a fairly famous Dutch quote saying "Read, it does not say what it says". You come to the conclusion that the board is not interested in the research into the establishment of a "volunteer council". I fail to read the same thing. What I read is that the board gives ample room and encourages the projects to set up its own governance.
I would find it encouraging if the original group proposing a "volunteer council" just started to make a difference. This difference would be in actually starting to organise project level organisation and procedures. You are the group best suited for this because you already exist. The composition of the group is such that it does reflect a large part of our projects. Getting a similar group of people to where you currently are is difficult.
Please get this act together and move forward !! Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I was on the group.
We did not even start the discussions.
The only thing we had was the resolution proposed by Lodewijk. It was published, both here and on meta. I am sure you read it.
The expectation was we could be a group researching a possibility to establish the VC, and, in case we would conclude the VC should be established, come up with some recommendations how it could function and draft some initial policy on VC.
Of course we would be prepared to present the results of the research in public. Even more, there have been suggestions on this list (not supported by me) that we debate actually in public.
The board has made it explicit it is not interested in this research.
So far, this has been the end of the story.
Cheers Yaroslav
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was
in
essence a working group. My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill them.
I would infact be curious to know if that was really the case.
While I agree with Lodewijk that it would be useful for individual board members to be open about thier individual views on the matter, equally I have to ask Lodewijk, EC and company, if they would be prepared to present to the public what the proposal they offered to the board (and was not acted upon directly by them) was like?
So far we have had an interpretation by Jimbo about the restructuring (an interpretation that does not clearly express what his preference was within the internal discussions, if any). And we have had an interpretation by Mike Snow, somewhat circumspectly expressed, of both the demurral of direct Board involvement with setting up the council, and the restructuring of the board, again with fairly light amount of personal views revealed.
Antheres opinions have revealed that some of the discussion was somewhat vexing, but even she hasn't really given specifics, leaving us to try and read between the lines what her own views might have been like, though promising to speak more on the matter later, and clearly encouraging the others on the board to give their side of the matter.
And while the people who were on the private group to explore the setting up of the council have demanded public explanations, they haven't themselves gone first and revealed what they presented to the board, or how their proposal was prepared, what conflicting views were balanced and how.
Somehow the situation reminds me of a poker game with both players asking the other guy to show their cards first.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
All the Board had to do is endorse the Provisional Council, which was in essence a working group. My only issue with chapter seats is that we have no real way to fill them.
I would infact be curious to know if that was really the case.
While I agree with Lodewijk that it would be useful for individual board members to be open about thier individual views on the matter, equally I have to ask Lodewijk, EC and company, if they would be prepared to present to the public what the proposal they offered to the board (and was not acted upon directly by them) was like?
I can only speak for myself. In the exchanges that I had with Lodewijk before the resolution was made public I was the one to introduce the word "provisional". In doing that it was with the understanding that a number of very significant aspects could not be presented as hard policies of the Council. It was a question of swimming between the Board prerogatives needed to be protected, and the often querulous individuals that show interest in matters of governance. I quickly realized that any proposal that was too specific would be quickly doomed to failure. This was why I viewed it as imperative that a provisional group would be able to develop ideas in a process that would be highly dependent on public feedback. Hopefully, it would have been able to have more concrete proposals in a September report.
Perhaps the word "create" in the resolution was ill-chosen, but if that was all there was to the Board's objection the word could have been changed. Somehow somewhere we have transitioned from the notion that a proposal is an idea to be grown, and arrived at the notion that a proposal is an idea to be defended. I knew from the beginning that there was no legal impediment to a group getting together and calling itself a Wikicouncil. That group could get together in whatever way it chooses, and pass whatever resolutions it wants, but to what avail? Brad takes pride in having taken advantage of a Florida loophole that allows for a memberless corporation in stating that the community has no rights. This patronizing attitude toward the entire community is legally correct, but it is not a platform for growth. Such defensive structures may be a part of the barratrous tradition of American law, but they are not constructive in a time when so many political structures have come into question. Wikimedia has no precedents to follow, we need to avoid preconceived notions about corporate structure.
In the small group that was named in the proposal there is wide divergence in views about how a Wikicouncil would function. One member has proposed some very detailed ideas, but it would be misleading to say that the rest of the group immediately agrees with them before it has had a chance for detailed discussion.
I very much believe in the autonomy of every individual project, and I see a Wikicouncil as potentially providing a non-obligatory framework of generally accepted policies that are less susceptible to drive-by amendments. I look with suspicion at the role of naming stewards or setting up a meta-arbcom as long as the application of individual rights and privileges are likely to come into conflict with more dispassionate consideration of broadly applicable ideas. Nevertheless, I do not dismiss out-of-hand such structures as long as they can operate independently from and with different personnel from the Wikicouncil. I see Wikicouncil working to diminish the often poisonous environment that prevails in some circles. If en-wp has such difficulties it needs to find its own road out of its problems, and Wikicouncil's role in that may be limited to one of moral support and leadership.
I can only enter such a group with an open mind, and at this early stage I would have been satisfied with a Board resolution that recognizes the Council as a viable initiative that needs a lot of further work.
So far we have had an interpretation by Jimbo about the restructuring (an interpretation that does not clearly express what his preference was within the internal discussions, if any). And we have had an interpretation by Mike Snow, somewhat circumspectly expressed, of both the demurral of direct Board involvement with setting up the council, and the restructuring of the board, again with fairly light amount of personal views revealed.
That did not pass unnoticed.
Antheres opinions have revealed that some of the discussion was somewhat vexing, but even she hasn't really given specifics, leaving us to try and read between the lines what her own views might have been like, though promising to speak more on the matter later, and clearly encouraging the others on the board to give their side of the matter.
There was an element of corporate hedgehogery in her comments, notably in her concern about leaks. Being president puts a person in a very delicate position when she must uphold group solidarity.
And while the people who were on the private group to explore the setting up of the council have demanded public explanations, they haven't themselves gone first and revealed what they presented to the board, or how their proposal was prepared, what conflicting views were balanced and how.
You seem to be suggesting that much more was decided than what was in fact presented. The resolution, flawed as it may be, was what was presented to the Board. By agreeing to serve on the Provisional Council it can be assumed that the people listed in the resolution agreed with what it did, but nothing more. On the group's side there is nothing there to reveal. While I did help Lodewijk with some of the drafting, even there we agreed to make the draft public well before the planned date of the Board meeting to give ample opportunity for comments, and to allow the Board to make the amendments it saw fit to conform to their interpretation of public opinion on the matter.
Somehow the situation reminds me of a poker game with both players asking the other guy to show their cards first.
The group's cards were all face up on the table.
Ec
In the small group that was named in the proposal there is wide divergence in views about how a Wikicouncil would function. One member has proposed some very detailed ideas, but it would be misleading to say that the rest of the group immediately agrees with them before it has had a chance for detailed discussion.
And just to make it clear to everybody, all these discussions have taken place on foundation-l. We did not have any off-list discussion or any closed mailing lists before the resolution was submitted.
Cheers Yaroslav
Just to clarify the wording: you say no off-list discussion or closed mailing lists before the resolution was submitted. What about after, up until now?
I'm assuming you meant no to that as well, just the wording was a little ambiguous. Forgive me.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
In the small group that was named in the proposal there is wide divergence in views about how a Wikicouncil would function. One member has proposed some very detailed ideas, but it would be misleading to say that the rest of the group immediately agrees with them before it has had a chance for detailed discussion.
And just to make it clear to everybody, all these discussions have taken place on foundation-l. We did not have any off-list discussion or any closed mailing lists before the resolution was submitted.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
To be precise, after the resolution has been rejected (meaning last week), there was some e-mail exchange between the members of the meant-to-be-PVC. Not all of the members reacted, and no discussion so far has been started.
Cheers, Yaroslav
Just to clarify the wording: you say no off-list discussion or closed mailing lists before the resolution was submitted. What about after, up until now?
I'm assuming you meant no to that as well, just the wording was a little ambiguous. Forgive me.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
In the small group that was named in the proposal there is wide divergence in views about how a Wikicouncil would function. One
member
has proposed some very detailed ideas, but it would be misleading to
say
that the rest of the group immediately agrees with them before it has had a chance for detailed discussion.
And just to make it clear to everybody, all these discussions have taken place on foundation-l. We did not have any off-list discussion or any closed mailing lists before the resolution was submitted.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This is what I assumed. Thanks for the clarification. :-)
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
To be precise, after the resolution has been rejected (meaning last week), there was some e-mail exchange between the members of the meant-to-be-PVC. Not all of the members reacted, and no discussion so far has been started.
Cheers, Yaroslav
Just to clarify the wording: you say no off-list discussion or closed mailing lists before the resolution was submitted. What about after, up until now?
I'm assuming you meant no to that as well, just the wording was a little ambiguous. Forgive me.
-Chad
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
In the small group that was named in the proposal there is wide divergence in views about how a Wikicouncil would function. One
member
has proposed some very detailed ideas, but it would be misleading to
say
that the rest of the group immediately agrees with them before it has had a chance for detailed discussion.
And just to make it clear to everybody, all these discussions have taken place on foundation-l. We did not have any off-list discussion or any closed mailing lists before the resolution was submitted.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The group's cards were all face up on the table.
Ec
In case it was not clear, I have much respect and admiration for the job done by the group who set up the WikiCouncil proposition. The current trends (toward more professionalization, with a background of fear, and increasing power play) are simply not favorable. We should have done it much earlier...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org