On 6/15/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have given a bit of thought in the issue during the past few days, in reading all the emails on this list, and I had the opportunity today to talk with one of the co-founder of the Apache Foundation, in particular about the way their Foundation is organised. I put wikitech in copy, because I am pretty sure some of the guys there know the organisation and will be able to correct me if necessary.
I thought that his description of his Foundation... would very possibly fit pretty well what it seems many on this list are looking for and solve some of our current problems.
Thanks for sharing that.
Let me try and summarize in "applying to us" to see if I have understood well.
So we'd have the following defined roles
*Community members (members of all Wikimedia projects)
*Project management committees - for us, these would be people within the community appointed by resolution of the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. Once appointed, the PMC members have a right to propose to add members in their PMC. The PMC would be in charge of making sure the legal aspects of each projects are taken care of and observed, make sure that procedures are followed in the development of the projects. These are not automatically the editors with the greatest number of edits, but rather those who have shown a commitment to the organisation and the day-to-day running of the projects, taking care of legal issues, procedure issues etc. They'd have a responsibility and an oversight role. Not an editing power as such (ie. they can't impose their POV on an article). Their frame of action will have to be very clearly defined, but if it is, they'd be an asset to the projects.
*Wikimedia Foundation members - those would be nominated by the board, proposed to the board by anyone else who feels someone should be a Foundation member. They could be issued directly from the community, from the PMCs or from anywhere else.
*Wikimedia Foundation board of directors - are elected within the pool of members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
*Special tasks committees : those are issued from the pool of members of the Wikimedia Foundation, or created around and with external individuals which show the necessary skills to lead/participate in those committees.
I think that's it.
As I see it, this is indeed an interesting bit. To answer Tim's concerns (and I agree with Lukasz comment, btw), I believe the fact that members of the Wikimedia Foundation would be appointed by the board actually make it pretty "safe" for anyone who might have a problem with a community elected body. For the record, I am one of those. A great editor in a virtual project does not make a great board member in a real-life organisation, and the predominance of one language or one project does not ensure harmonious representation. The model might seem restraining at first (only the board's "friends" could be considered as members of the Wikimedia Foundation) but in a mid-term perspective, I cannot see the board only appointing their best friends/supporters, as it would not scale. And the larger the body that nominates, the more diversified the people on it.
The way the PMC are set up also gives the board an oversight. However, it would be stupid from the board to appoint on the PMCs people who have absolutely no community support, because it would make the PMC members' job way harder. So in our case, the appointement of PMCs could be coupled with polls within communities as to who should be on the PMCs. Note that as I understand it, PMCs members have a real life responsibility, which would call for a disclosure of their real life identity. I would argue that PMC members are not necessarily stewards or bureaucrats, which would still be elected as "trusted" community members", but rather people who have made clear what their skills and agendas are as to the responsibility they are offered in being part of a PMC.
I would probably still consider a body such as the Wikicouncil in such an organisation of things, ie. people voted as "community" representatives, who have no "real life" responsibilities per se, but are tasked with making sure the communication between community members and the Wikimedia Foundation flows. It is high time the community be represented by someone(s) rather than speaking through a myriad of individuals who, in the end, have no other voice than their own.
I believe that in the end, it is indeed an interesting model. At least, it seems to me to make a very clear distinction between projects and organisation (the PMCs are the organisation's representatives in the projects). My belief is that in the mid-term, this lack of separation can be very dangerous, both for the projects and the Foundation. This model makes the separation very clear, without shutting out the community from accessing the responsibilities within the organisation, and without shutting it out from decision, as it provides a model for working harmoniously together (everyone knows what they have to do and what they're here for).
Delphine