On 8 May 2014 21:48, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net> wrote:

Hi all,

It's good to see the role of the WMUK committees being focused on - thank you Michael for starting this.

However, I think it's a real shame that the committees are becoming much more advisory than they were supposed to be when they were originally envisaged and created just a few years ago. The charter here basically gives the committee no powers whatsoever. Compare it with the proposal I posted in 2012 at:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/General_Committee_Charter
which was aimed at giving the committees some amount of delegated power to decide what would or wouldn't happen.

I believe the general understanding of

https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Articles_of_Association/2013_EGM_revision#Delegation_of_Directors'_powers

is that

"1. Committees are sub-committees of the Wikimedia UK Board"

means that those committees would consist entirely of trustees.

Instead, now we're seeing committees that may or may not be able to give input to staff members (depending on whether staff members decide if they want to consult the committees or not). The power balance is very much on the side of the staff, who hold individual viewpoints (which are generally very good and worth listening to - but they are individual viewpoints) rather than viewpoints balanced across a spectrum of views (which is what a committee can provide). It's also worth remembering that the staff were hired to support the community rather than the other way around...

"Power balance"? Removing parentheses, that sentence reads "The power balance is very much on the side of the staff, who hold individual viewpoints rather than viewpoints balanced across a spectrum of views." With the following sentence, I do wonder what this is driving at.

Of course all committee members are going to advocate for particular perspectives, which is why there has to be a chair. With the first sentence, this is apparently about delegated powers to manage staff?

My experience of a couple of the committees would suggest, on the basis of particular instances:

(1) There can be an issue about committee members laying down the law (Mike, you are guilty of that);

(2) There can be an issue with staff role and actions;

(3) There can be an issue if participants disregard the role of chair.

But I don't think any of these is particularly a charter issue. The things I can bring to mind are at the level of what I would call "savoir faire".

If the priorities could be flipped here, and the committees are given the direct ability to give recommendations to the WMUK board or to make some level of budget decisions, then I think it's useful to continue to have the committees. If not, then I would ask why the committees exist here...

Well, they can do the first, and they are not going to be able to do the second (budget) thing directly, as I understand the status quo: they are clearly able to influence discussion of budgetary matters.

The point would be to have a layer of effective discussion between the strategic focus of the Board, and the detailed implementation by the office and contractors. I think it would be a mistake to define the "clearing-house" function out of existence.

Charles