I'm not entirely sure I understand the process here for making decisions. Reading through http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 I can see a few decisions are already being presented as if they have been made:
* The initial Board will have 3-5 members * The initial Board will serve only until the AGM * WM-UK will be a Company Limited by Guarantee * The name will be "Wiki Information Network"
How have/should these decisions be made? a consensus on the email list? a consensus on the wiki page?
Please enlighten me!
Andrew Turvey
2008/9/8 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
I'm not entirely sure I understand the process here for making decisions. Reading through http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 I can see a few decisions are already being presented as if they have been made:
- The initial Board will have 3-5 members
- The initial Board will serve only until the AGM
- WM-UK will be a Company Limited by Guarantee
- The name will be "Wiki Information Network"
How have/should these decisions be made? a consensus on the email list? a consensus on the wiki page?
Consensus on IRC for the most part, but they're all still open for discussion if you disagree with any of them (except the 2nd one - that's the law!).
2008/9/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2008/9/8 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
I'm not entirely sure I understand the process here for making decisions. Reading through http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 I can see a few decisions are already being presented as if they have been made:
- The initial Board will have 3-5 members
- The initial Board will serve only until the AGM
- WM-UK will be a Company Limited by Guarantee
- The name will be "Wiki Information Network"
How have/should these decisions be made? a consensus on the email list? a consensus on the wiki page?
Consensus on IRC for the most part, but they're all still open for discussion if you disagree with any of them (except the 2nd one - that's the law!).
Oh, and I think the board having a minimum of 3 people is the law too (well, I think that's charity law, rather than company law, so doesn't actually apply to us at this stage, but we want to be compliant with charity law from the start to make registering easier).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/8 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
I'm not entirely sure I understand the process here for making decisions. Reading through http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 I can see a few decisions are already being presented as if they have been made:
- The initial Board will have 3-5 members
- The initial Board will serve only until the AGM
- WM-UK will be a Company Limited by Guarantee
- The name will be "Wiki Information Network"
How have/should these decisions be made? a consensus on the email list? a consensus on the wiki page?
Consensus on IRC for the most part, but they're all still open for discussion if you disagree with any of them (except the 2nd one - that's the law!).
I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be part of them).
However, I do object to decisions being made on IRC (or any other form of synchronouse communication). Synchronicity requires one to be present at a given time. In a distributed community this is not possible.
IRC (and other synchronous communications) should only be used to formulate proposals. Decisions must (IMHO) be made on the mailing list with a minimum period of 72 hours for objections.
You can use "lazy consensus" to smooth the flow of these proposals to decisions and avoid the need for vote counting. Lazy consensus means that a proposal becomes a decision if nobody objects within the a defined period of time. If someone objects the proposal is discussed until a new satisfactory proposal is written and the lazy consensus period commences again.
Should it be impossible to come to a unaminous consensus with respect to a proposal then a vote can be called.
Obviously this is not a fully detailed decision making process, some decisions need to be formalised with a vote. However, for most decisions this process is easy to adminster, effective and (most importantly) inclusive.
Ross
Consensus on IRC for the most part, but they're all still open for discussion if you disagree with any of them (except the 2nd one - that's the law!).
I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be part of them).
Not at all, nothing has been done yet (beyond publicising our plans and gathering a list of names), it's not too late to change anything if you have any comments to make.
However, I do object to decisions being made on IRC (or any other form of synchronouse communication). Synchronicity requires one to be present at a given time. In a distributed community this is not possible.
IRC (and other synchronous communications) should only be used to formulate proposals. Decisions must (IMHO) be made on the mailing list with a minimum period of 72 hours for objections.
Absolutely, and that's what's been happening. Once we have a consensus on IRC we put the proposal on meta and there is room for further discussion there. Perhaps we haven't made it clear enough that nothing is final yet - I'll add a notice to the top of the meta page to that effect. I think the decisions should be made on meta rather than this mailing list - it's more easily accessible and allows for better record keeping (finding things in a mailing list archive is not a fun job!).
You can use "lazy consensus" to smooth the flow of these proposals to decisions and avoid the need for vote counting. Lazy consensus means that a proposal becomes a decision if nobody objects within the a defined period of time. If someone objects the proposal is discussed until a new satisfactory proposal is written and the lazy consensus period commences again.
That's pretty much what I understand the definition of consensus to be.
Should it be impossible to come to a unaminous consensus with respect to a proposal then a vote can be called.
Obviously this is not a fully detailed decision making process, some decisions need to be formalised with a vote. However, for most decisions this process is easy to adminster, effective and (most importantly) inclusive.
Voting is not really a good way to make decisions unless you're in an actual meeting with a set group of people, it takes too long otherwise. We've done pretty well with consensus so far, and I think we should just go with a rough consensus formed through discussion if that's the best we can get rather than going to the hassle of a vote. The only vote should be the one for a board - once we have a board they can make the final decisions (after consultation with the community if appropriate).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Consensus on IRC for the most part, but they're all still open for discussion if you disagree with any of them (except the 2nd one - that's the law!).
I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be part of them).
Not at all, nothing has been done yet (beyond publicising our plans and gathering a list of names), it's not too late to change anything if you have any comments to make.
OK - I'll rephrase then.
I don't intend to object to these decisions despite my objection to the way you described the decisions being made ("Consensus on IRC"). To be 100% clear, I have no problem with the decisions made by those who made them only with a decision making process that is not inclusive.
<snip what="agreement through restatement - meaning if we weren't agreeing, then I misunderstood"/>
Voting is not really a good way to make decisions unless you're in an actual meeting with a set group of people, it takes too long otherwise. We've done pretty well with consensus so far, and I think we should just go with a rough consensus formed through discussion if that's the best we can get rather than going to the hassle of a vote. The only vote should be the one for a board - once we have a board they can make the final decisions (after consultation with the community if appropriate).
+1
So the answer to the original question is:
"decisions made by this community are taken via a process known as lazy consensus, that is, unless you object to a proposal it is assumed you agree".
Ross
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be part of them).
Good. Because if we had followed your methods they would probably not yet have been made.
However, I do object to decisions being made on IRC (or any other form of synchronouse communication). Synchronicity requires one to be present at a given time. In a distributed community this is not possible.
IRC (and other synchronous communications) should only be used to formulate proposals. Decisions must (IMHO) be made on the mailing list with a minimum period of 72 hours for objections.
You can use "lazy consensus" to smooth the flow of these proposals to decisions and avoid the need for vote counting. Lazy consensus means that a proposal becomes a decision if nobody objects within the a defined period of time. If someone objects the proposal is discussed until a new satisfactory proposal is written and the lazy consensus period commences again.
Should it be impossible to come to a unaminous consensus with respect to a proposal then a vote can be called.
Obviously this is not a fully detailed decision making process, some decisions need to be formalised with a vote. However, for most decisions this process is easy to adminster, effective and (most importantly) inclusive.
Ross
It is about getting people's interest. Saying "the previous board has collapsed lets start discussing ideas on how to start a new one" isn't going to get you as far as "the previous board has collapsed here's a way that will let us start a new one". Sure it's possible that everyone would reject the method but they didn't so we are nicely motoring along with most of the stuff we need to do pre-election done and only a couple of worries about the election that I can work around at a pinch.
geni wrote:
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be part of them).
Good. Because if we had followed your methods they would probably not yet have been made.
Sorry, I don't understand.
The methods I describe are in use in a large number of highly succesful communities and, according to a previous mail from Thomas to be identical to the one (informally) used to reach the current proposal, i.e. lazy consensus.
Am I missing something or is this merely a lack of clarity in what I was saying.
Ross
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
geni wrote:
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be part of them).
Good. Because if we had followed your methods they would probably not yet have been made.
Sorry, I don't understand.
The methods I describe are in use in a large number of highly succesful communities and, according to a previous mail from Thomas to be identical to the one (informally) used to reach the current proposal, i.e. lazy consensus.
Am I missing something or is this merely a lack of clarity in what I was saying.
You also proposed voting on things - that's the part that wouldn't be practical.
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:> > geni wrote:> >> 2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:> >>> I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be> >>> part of them).> >>> >>> >> Good. Because if we had followed your methods they would probably not> >> yet have been made.> >> > Sorry, I don't understand.> >> > The methods I describe are in use in a large number of highly succesful> > communities and, according to a previous mail from Thomas to be> > identical to the one (informally) used to reach the current proposal,> > i.e. lazy consensus.> >> > Am I missing something or is this merely a lack of clarity in what I was> > saying.> > You also proposed voting on things - that's the part that wouldn't be practical.
A lot of discussion has occurred between lots of people, on IRC, email, this mailing list, meta and in some cases vocally. The only decision's i can say that have been made is to hold an election. The notice of that was made on two mailing lists and many people were informed on wiki as well. At the moment there are steps being taken in setting up a group to oversee the election. The timetable was placed on meta, as far as i am aware there has been no complaints regarding that. It has been a fine balance between ensuring that decisions had community imput and ensuring they made as quickly as possible. The necessity for WMUK to be working and up and running for a Wikimania bid has also been a strong driving force. We are just trying to get this done and out of the way so WMUK can get on and be successful. _________________________________________________________________ Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
geni wrote:
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be part of them).
Good. Because if we had followed your methods they would probably not yet have been made.
Sorry, I don't understand.
The methods I describe are in use in a large number of highly succesful communities and, according to a previous mail from Thomas to be identical to the one (informally) used to reach the current proposal, i.e. lazy consensus.
Am I missing something or is this merely a lack of clarity in what I was saying.
You also proposed voting on things - that's the part that wouldn't be practical.
Ahhh.. I see.
I said "Should it be impossible to come to a unaminous consensus with respect to a proposal then a vote can be called."
Let me clarify:
A vote should *only* be called when either:
a) it is legally required b) someone continues to object to a proposal without it being possible to find an agreeable alternative.
In other words a vote is *only* called to remove a block that someone puts into the lazy consensus appraoch.
I am *not* suggesting a vote be called in *any* circumstances other than when it is impossible to get consensus.
Trust me, we are in agreement, I just didn't express things as clearly as I could.
Ross
Thomas Dalton wrote:> > 2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:> >> geni wrote:> >>> 2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:> >>>> I'm not objecting to these decisions themselves (I came too late to be> >>>> part of them).> >>>> >>> Good. Because if we had followed your methods they would probably not> >>> yet have been made.> >> Sorry, I don't understand.> >>> >> The methods I describe are in use in a large number of highly succesful> >> communities and, according to a previous mail from Thomas to be> >> identical to the one (informally) used to reach the current proposal,> >> i.e. lazy consensus.> >>> >> Am I missing something or is this merely a lack of clarity in what I was> >> saying.> > > > You also proposed voting on things - that's the part that wouldn't be practical.> > Ahhh.. I see.> > I said "Should it be impossible to come to a unaminous consensus with > respect to a proposal then a vote can be called."> > Let me clarify:> > A vote should *only* be called when either:> > a) it is legally required> b) someone continues to object to a proposal without it being possible > to find an agreeable alternative.> > In other words a vote is *only* called to remove a block that someone > puts into the lazy consensus appraoch.> > I am *not* suggesting a vote be called in *any* circumstances other than > when it is impossible to get consensus.> > Trust me, we are in agreement, I just didn't express things as clearly > as I could.> > Ross
It may be worth skulking around the IRC channel for both WMUK and the wikimania oxford bid. Given the close nature in terms of membership between the two, discussion occurs in both channels though we try to direct the right discussion to the right channel. _________________________________________________________________ Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/
joseph seddon wrote:
It may be worth skulking around the IRC channel for both WMUK and the wikimania oxford bid. Given the close nature in terms of membership between the two, discussion occurs in both channels though we try to direct the right discussion to the right channel.
Sorry. I can't do that. I hate IRC it disturbs the normal pattern of work and makes me totally unproductive. I prefer to catch up on emails when I'm allocating a slot of time to that lists activity.
Having said that, with the speed of this exchange it may as well be on IRC. But I'm off to bed now. So much for my "lurking".
Before I go, let me say it's good to see the list constructive - well done folks!
Ross
At 00:09 +0100 9/9/08, Ross Gardler wrote:
joseph seddon wrote:
It may be worth skulking around the IRC channel for both WMUK and the wikimania oxford bid. Given the close nature in terms of membership between the two, discussion occurs in both channels though we try to direct the right discussion to the right channel.
Sorry. I can't do that. I hate IRC it disturbs the normal pattern of work and makes me totally unproductive. I prefer to catch up on emails when I'm allocating a slot of time to that lists activity.
Having said that, with the speed of this exchange it may as well be on IRC. But I'm off to bed now. So much for my "lurking".
Before I go, let me say it's good to see the list constructive - well done folks!
Ross
I agree with the IRC issue.
IRC is not a mode of communication I favour.
And I have only just caught up on some very useful stuff on the wiki...
Gordo
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
Sorry, I don't understand.
The methods I describe are in use in a large number of highly succesful communities and, according to a previous mail from Thomas to be identical to the one (informally) used to reach the current proposal, i.e. lazy consensus.
Am I missing something or is this merely a lack of clarity in what I was saying.
Ross
They are used when appropriate. When you need to present people with a fairly complete whole and fast there are better options. There are times when the most important thing is to get a decision rather than worrying about how.
Of course later on you can say how we should of done it but the way taken worked and when you consider that people could have just shrugged and walked away but are instead now moveing along a line that should lead to a functioning WMUK I think our way worked okey.
Or to put it another way the initial setup was done in the IRC channel because everyone actually doing stuff to do with the initial setup was in that IRC channel. There simply was no wider group around to refer wider decisions to. Now there is.
2008/9/8 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
You can use "lazy consensus" to smooth the flow of these proposals to decisions and avoid the need for vote counting. Lazy consensus means that a proposal becomes a decision if nobody objects within the a defined period of time. If someone objects the proposal is discussed until a new satisfactory proposal is written and the lazy consensus period commences again.
This is of course the way anything actually gets done around Wikimedia in general :-)
IRC is not a place to *make* decisions (unless it's an official IRC meeting - make sure the new corp. expressly notes that meetings can be online!), but it's *fantastically* valuable for sanity checking and coming up with robust ideas that people will see and go "of course, that's obviously sensible."
- d.
IRC is not a place to *make* decisions (unless it's an official IRC meeting - make sure the new corp. expressly notes that meetings can be online!), but it's *fantastically* valuable for sanity checking and coming up with robust ideas that people will see and go "of course, that's obviously sensible."
Exactly, that's what I see IRC's purpose being. (And yes, allowing online board meetings is on my mental list of things to change from the defaults! Full blown video conferencing [which is the legal requirement for an online discussion to count as a "meeting" in the absence of a definition to the contrary] is a little outside our budget!)
2008/9/8 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
- The initial Board will have 3-5 members
- The initial Board will serve only until the AGM
The first point here is a good estimate. This "initial board" isn't a board in so far as they are a type of steering committee. You want to have a focused group of people who are going to be dedicated to getting this group up and running. Also, there aren't a lot of tasks that can be performed in parallel at this time: paperwork and applications are single person jobs, and frequently can only have one name on them, if not a small but finite handful. 3-5 members is a good default, and I personally recommend it.
Also, since the "initial board" isn't really a board at all, they only serve until the first AGM when a real board is elected by the community.
- WM-UK will be a Company Limited by Guarantee
There has been a lot of discussion about this here on the list. Apparently, in the UK this is the best path for young charity organizations to follow (I don't know enough about UK law to recommend for or against it, but I know people have been talking about it).
- The name will be "Wiki Information Network"
In the end, the name will be whatever the person filling out the form writes down on paper. What your official legal name is doesn't matter so much anyway, since we're all going to call you "Wikimedia UK".
--Andrew Whitworth
Also, since the "initial board" isn't really a board at all, they only serve until the first AGM when a real board is elected by the community.
Legally speaking, they will be the board of directors of the company. Their role will be very different from the roles of futures boards, but it is important to be clear that we are electing people who will be board members with all the legal responsibilities and liabilities that entails.
At 18:05 -0400 8/9/08, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
2008/9/8 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
- The initial Board will have 3-5 members
- The initial Board will serve only until the AGM
The first point here is a good estimate. This "initial board" isn't a board in so far as they are a type of steering committee. You want to have a focused group of people who are going to be dedicated to getting this group up and running. Also, there aren't a lot of tasks that can be performed in parallel at this time: paperwork and applications are single person jobs, and frequently can only have one name on them, if not a small but finite handful. 3-5 members is a good default, and I personally recommend it.
Also, since the "initial board" isn't really a board at all, they only serve until the first AGM when a real board is elected by the community.
Elected by the guarantor members, to be precise. Only guarantor members can speak and vote at the general meetings (of the company).
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org