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