Hello,
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.
It has some points in commons with the previous Wikicouncil on which we had worked, but one of the problems with the Wikicouncil was ... the rather unclear role of this one. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Now, from what I understood from Lars description, I think the Apache Foundation model could rather well fit us... if so, why trying to reinvent the wheel ?
I will try to describe below, using largely what is explained on their site + his comments. Please correct me if you view some misunterpretations. Also, if you know the organisation from the inside, please comment.
--------
Ant : Bare facts : their goals (please compare with our goals)
What is the Apache Software Foundation?
The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization incorporated in the United States of America and was formed primarily to:
* provide a foundation for open, collaborative software development projects by supplying hardware, communication, and business infrastructure * create an independent legal entity to which companies and individuals can donate resources and be assured that those resources will be used for the public benefit * provide a means for individual volunteers to be sheltered from legal suits directed at the Foundation's projects * protect the 'Apache' brand, as applied to its software products, from being abused by other organizations
Ant : Aside from point 3, that's roughly similar to us
--------
The Foundation structure
At the time the ASF was created, there were several separate communities, each focused on a different side of the "web serving" problem, but all united by a common set of goals and a respected set of cultural traditions in both etiquette and process.
Ant : in short, several projects with rather individual communities and a common goal.
These separate communities were referred to as "projects" and while similar, each of them exhibited little differences that made them special.
In order to reduce friction and allow for diversity to emerge, rather than forcing a monoculture from the top, the projects are designated the central decision-making organizations of the Apache world. Each project is delegated authority over development of its software, and is given a great deal of latitude in designing its own technical charter and its own governing rules.
The foundation is governed by the following entities:
Board of Directors (board) governs the foundation and is composed of members.
Project Management Committees (PMC) govern the projects, and they are composed of committers. (Note that every member is, by definition, also a committer.)
Ant : for us, we currently have the board. Something similar to the PMC was suggested on the list recently, so as to separate more strictly board and projects
-----------
Board of Directors (board)
The board is responsible for management and oversight of the business and affairs of the corporation in accordance with the foundation Bylaws. This includes management of the corporate assets (funds, intellectual property, trademarks, and support equipment) and allocation of corporate resources to projects.
However, technical decision-making authority regarding the content and direction of the Apache projects is assigned to each respective project management committee.
The board is currently composed by nine individuals, elected between the members of the foundation. The bylaws don't specify the number of officers that the board should have, but historically, this was the number of the first board and it has never changed. The board is elected every year.
Ant : note that the board is elected by the members of the Foundation (ASF Member). Not by all developers whatever their status, but only ASF members (see below how to get ASF member).
Ant : Lars told me that the board was entirely elected. So entirely came from within the community.
-------------
Project Management Committees (PMC)
The Project Management Committees are established by resolution of the Board, to be responsible for the active management of one or more communities, which are also identified by resolution of the Board.
Each PMC consists of at least one officer of the ASF, who shall be designated chairperson, and may include one or more other members of the ASF.
The chair of the PMC is appointed by the Board and is an officer of the ASF (Vice President). The chair has primary responsibility to the Board, and has the power to establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of the communities for which the PMC is responsible, including the composition of the PMC itself.
Ant : in our case, the PMC (rather than the chair really) might have the power to make the rules over copyright issues for example
The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight. The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and every release is the product of the community as a whole. That is key to our litigation protection mechanisms.
Secondly the role of the PMC is to further the long term development and health of the community as a whole, and to ensure that balanced and wide scale peer review and collaboration does happen. Within the ASF we worry about any community which centers around a few individuals who are working virtually uncontested. We believe that this is detrimental to quality, stability, and robustness of both code and long term social structures.
As the PMC, and the chair in particular, are eyes and ears of the ASF Board, it is you that we rely on and need to trust to provide legal oversight.
The board has the faculty to terminate a PMC at any time by resolution.
------------
How does someone get PMC Member ?
PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to merit for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They have write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address, the right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to propose an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the entity that controls the project, nobody else.
-------
How does someone get ASF Member
ASF member is a person that was nominated by current members and elected due to merit for the evolution and progress of the foundation. Members care for the ASF itself. This is usually demonstrated through the roots of project-related and cross-project activities. Legally, a member is a "shareholder" of the foundation, one of the owners. They have the right to elect the board, to stand as a candidate for the board election and to propose a committer for membership. They also have the right to propose a new project for incubation (we'll see later what this means). The members coordinate their activities through their mailing list and through their annual meeting.
Ant : note the subtle difference between an PMC member (dedicated to his project , acquire a right to manage his project) with an ASF member (dedicated to the Foundation or at least the general goal as opposed to a specific project). Most people on this mailing list are typically ASF type...
Ant : a subtility mentionned by Lars is that there is no limitation to the members of ASF. It is a sort of confirmation process rather than election. A person is recognised as "involved and trusted", hence she becomes a member. So, there is not this notion we had previously thought in the wikicouncil idea that 5 seats should be given to english wikipedia, whilst only 3 for the french wikibooks and 1 for the catalan wikiquote. As a result, the membership grows and grows... roughly 150 people if I remember well. Lars mentionned that when the quorum for vote will become hard to reach, they will probably un-ASF memberise the inactive members.
What do ASF members do ?
They elect the board...
Ant : now, think about it. If ASF members are *officially* ASF members, they are not anonymous. All of them have their real name known. They are real members of a legal entity. For us, anons or people refusing to give their real names (at least privately) could not be ASF members. However, they could elect (or support) other people to become ASF members.
Ant : another thing not mentionned on their website but which I was explained : each project committee must mandatorily have at least 2 ASF members on it. They also have an incubator area, where new projects are started and tested. Similarly, these projects must be "headed" by a committeee (elected by its own members), on which must be found at least 2 ASF members.
---------
Other Foundation Entities
After infrastructure and incubator, the foundation hosts several other entities more or less formalized open to ASF members and to invited experts or individuals that do not directly create code but serve for specific purposes. They are:
the conference organizing committee (aka concom) -- responsible for the organization of the official ASF conference (aka ApacheCon)
the security committee -- responsible for the handling of potential security holes in the software produced by the foundation that might impact our users. It gets contacted by the finders of the problems before the problem report is made available to the public, to allow the projects to provide a fix in time for the report, thus reducing vulnerability to a minimum
the public relations committee -- responsible for the fund raising (collaborates with the concom since the conference is one of the major sources of income of the foundation) and public relations - including trademark licensing and other issues regarding management of the Apache brand, raising of funds, and is responsible for the press-related issues like press releases for major ASF events or dispatching requests for interviews.
the JCP committee -- responsible for the liaison between the ASF and the Java Community Process (the ASF is a member of the JCP Executive Committee)
the licensing committee -- responsible for the legal issues associated with licensing and license compatibilities and for the revision of the Apache Software License
Ant : guess what ? That looks as our committees...
------
Congrats to all those who made up so far. I summarize.
An organisation with * a board * members (ASF members) * aside committees (event, public relations etc...)
ASF Members elect the board.
A collection of projects, whose participants elect ASF members.
Each project has a governing committee in charge, on which there are at leasts 2 ASF members, and which report to the board of the ASF.
Comments ?
Ant
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
Delphine Ménard wrote:
On 6/15/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks for your feedback Delphine. I'll put a comment or two below and there is one correction to describe what their model is.
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.
Correction : in the ASF, the PMC are chosen by the community itself. By support from the community (a bit as we agree on our sysops). In our case, that makes sense, because the board does not know enough the local community to suggest names necessarily in a wise fashion. It seems to me as well these PMC should pretty much be self-organised. However, it would probably be best that the board has a veto over those. Another option would be that they be appointed by board upon a suggestion of names given by their community. I would myself support "elected by community with board veto".
The PMC have a couple of officers, such as a chair and a secretary. Those could either be appointed by the board or appointed by committee members with veto from board. But in any cases, the officers have a legal responsability, so should absolutely be RealPerson.
*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.
Correction again. WMF members should not be appointed by the board. They should be elected by the community. I would even go as far as to suggest that there should be NO board veto over these ones. If a problematic person slips in, it will not be a big deal, because of the size of that membership. We could expect a membership of over 100 people. They could indeed be issued from anywhere.
*Wikimedia Foundation board of directors - are elected within the pool of members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Note : in the ASF, all board members are actually *from* the pool of members and elected by the members. We might wish to make it possible for "externals" to join the board as well. In this case, we could imagine having the membership pool electing for an "external" to join the board (now, the question is, could we imagine 100 people voting to allow, say, Stallman, to join the board ? Would that be reasonable ?). Or we could have board members been allowed to appoint up to xx external people to get on the board.
*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.
yes
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.
This is the place where I do not understand your explanation. If the board appoints members, and is then elected by members... we might just get stuck in a loop. This is not at all what the AFS did. The community elect the membership. The membership elect the board. I think that this model could get very much in the wrong direction... if the membership is very limited in size (it would actually be a pre-election of the board). But if the membership is rather around 100 people (for example), then the risk of having a total mess in the elected body is actually pretty limited.
Note that a suggestion I would do is to include amongst groups of voters, meta and chapters. This would largely tip the balance in favor of those who are *actually* working for Foundation issues.
We might get to something like * Wikipedia can elect up to 30 members overall to become members * Wikibooks can elect up to 20 ... * Wikiquote can elect up to 1 ... (just kidding) * Meta can elect up to 20 members * All chapters members can elect up to 20 members
etc...
It may be that people are supported in two places. So what ? Who cares if there is no strictly fixed number ?
There is another point... You said "a good project editor does not necessarily make a good Foundation member". Yup... so what about "forcing" people to make a *choice* ? Either PMC member... or Foundation member ? The same skills are not required...
(as a reminder, all PMC must have 2 Foundation member on them. These 2 guys may volunteer or be appointed by board or appointed by MWF members. But only these 2 may be both on WMF membership AND a PMC).
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.
Nod. The PMC members could be elected by project, with a veto from WMF. Or a pool be elected by project, and the final members appointed by WMF (roughly, the english arbcom system). I would not suggest that all should give their real life identity as it would exclude too many people. We might require that only from the chair and co.
The *most* important point would be to very very clearly define their scope of action. They would have no particular rights as editors over the other editors for example, nor would they have the right to run/manage the local projects as "editor in chief".
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
ant
On 6/15/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Delphine Ménard wrote:
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.
Correction : in the ASF, the PMC are chosen by the community itself. By support from the community (a bit as we agree on our sysops). In our case, that makes sense, because the board does not know enough the local community to suggest names necessarily in a wise fashion. It seems to me as well these PMC should pretty much be self-organised. However, it would probably be best that the board has a veto over those. Another option would be that they be appointed by board upon a suggestion of names given by their community. I would myself support "elected by community with board veto".
Right, I missed the election part, and jumped to the resolution part. My bad.
The PMC have a couple of officers, such as a chair and a secretary. Those could either be appointed by the board or appointed by committee members with veto from board. But in any cases, the officers have a legal responsability, so should absolutely be RealPerson.
*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.
Correction again. WMF members should not be appointed by the board. They should be elected by the community. I would even go as far as to suggest that there should be NO board veto over these ones. If a problematic person slips in, it will not be a big deal, because of the size of that membership. We could expect a membership of over 100 people. They could indeed be issued from anywhere.
Here I do not understand if you're correcting my understanding of how ASF works, or my application to WMF.
This part: "How does someone get ASF Member ASF member is a person that was nominated by current members and elected due to merit for the evolution and progress of the foundation. Members care for the ASF itself."
is not clear as to who elects the ASF members. My understanding is that they were nominated by an ASF member (or through an ASF member upon recommandation from someone external) and voted in by the existing ASF members. Seems I am wrong.
*Wikimedia Foundation board of directors - are elected within the pool of members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Note : in the ASF, all board members are actually *from* the pool of members and elected by the members. We might wish to make it possible for "externals" to join the board as well. In this case, we could imagine having the membership pool electing for an "external" to join the board (now, the question is, could we imagine 100 people voting to allow, say, Stallman, to join the board ? Would that be reasonable ?). Or we could have board members been allowed to appoint up to xx external people to get on the board.
Well, my take on that, and how I understood it, is that ASF members could come from outside, since they were voted in by the existing members. But if it is the community that elects the ASF members, then that is moot. [snip]
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.
This is the place where I do not understand your explanation. If the board appoints members, and is then elected by members... we might just get stuck in a loop. This is not at all what the AFS did. The community elect the membership. The membership elect the board. I think that this model could get very much in the wrong direction... if the membership is very limited in size (it would actually be a pre-election of the board). But if the membership is rather around 100 people (for example), then the risk of having a total mess in the elected body is actually pretty limited.
And this is where we seem to disagree. The board might choose to keep people out as long as possible, but it is neither in their interest, nor in the interest of the organisation. If people are voted into the membership by the existing members, there has to come a time where the body that votes the members in is big enough to ensure diversity. Of course, if the board and the first members stop at 10 people, then the model doesn't work. My take is that membership of 10 people is rather stupid, and that 100 sounds like a better approach, whether it is set as a goal to reach in a certain time frame, whether the number is set etc. would still need to be determined.
Note that a suggestion I would do is to include amongst groups of voters, meta and chapters. This would largely tip the balance in favor of those who are *actually* working for Foundation issues.
You forget that many meta users and chapter members are *also* editors in a project or another. This could lead to people either voting twice, or having to choose sides (the project or the chapter? meta or wikipedia?)
We might get to something like
- Wikipedia can elect up to 30 members overall to become members
- Wikibooks can elect up to 20 ...
- Wikiquote can elect up to 1 ... (just kidding)
- Meta can elect up to 20 members
- All chapters members can elect up to 20 members
etc...
It may be that people are supported in two places. So what ? Who cares if there is no strictly fixed number ?
There is another point... You said "a good project editor does not necessarily make a good Foundation member". Yup... so what about "forcing" people to make a *choice* ? Either PMC member... or Foundation member ? The same skills are not required...
Yes, that is indeed a must-be requirement. You have to chose your battles.
(as a reminder, all PMC must have 2 Foundation member on them. These 2 guys may volunteer or be appointed by board or appointed by MWF members. But only these 2 may be both on WMF membership AND a PMC).
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.
Nod. The PMC members could be elected by project, with a veto from WMF. Or a pool be elected by project, and the final members appointed by WMF (roughly, the english arbcom system). I would not suggest that all should give their real life identity as it would exclude too many people. We might require that only from the chair and co.
I personally don't like the veto system. It is uncomfortable both for the board *and* the people involved. Pool to choose from is much better.
The *most* important point would be to very very clearly define their scope of action. They would have no particular rights as editors over the other editors for example, nor would they have the right to run/manage the local projects as "editor in chief".
This is where any model fails, coming to think of it. If the PMC's are elected by the community and have some kind of oversight granted by legal means, where does the "legal" part of their task stops and the "community mandate" starts? If those PMC's are held by community recognition, it is my belief that they will, at some point, have to make a choice.
The big problem with Wikimedia as I see it, is that we are trying to apply something that works to build an encyclopedia (utter democracy, collaborative community decisions) to a world with different rules (legal, financial, etc.), and most of all, rules which can't really be changed with a community decision the way we change spelling or bibliography rules.
The same way copy/pasting the ASF model, or the Greenpeace model, ot the US Federal model, you name it, doesn't work, copy/pasting the Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects model to the organisation doesn't work either.
So well, I'll have to think about this more.
Delphine
Delphine Ménard wrote:
The PMC have a couple of officers, such as a chair and a secretary. Those could either be appointed by the board or appointed by committee members with veto from board. But in any cases, the officers have a legal responsability, so should absolutely be RealPerson.
*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.
Correction again. WMF members should not be appointed by the board. They should be elected by the community. I would even go as far as to suggest that there should be NO board veto over these ones. If a problematic person slips in, it will not be a big deal, because of the size of that membership. We could expect a membership of over 100 people. They could indeed be issued from anywhere.
Here I do not understand if you're correcting my understanding of how ASF works, or my application to WMF.
This part: "How does someone get ASF Member ASF member is a person that was nominated by current members and elected due to merit for the evolution and progress of the foundation. Members care for the ASF itself."
is not clear as to who elects the ASF members. My understanding is that they were nominated by an ASF member (or through an ASF member upon recommandation from someone external) and voted in by the existing ASF members. Seems I am wrong.
Correcting the understanding of how ASF works.
It is actually unclear on their website. But Lars was very clear when he explained it to me yesterday.
Participants elect ASF members. Not all participants... sufficiently active ones (I do not know how he exactly defines "active". For us, that would probably be anyone who has been involved in a project for at least 3 months and xx number of edit AND/OR anyone who is active on one of the Wikimedia Chapter)
It is not really an election. It is more a process such as our sysop elections. Wide support : the guy is on. Mild support or opposition : the guy is not on.
He did not say if it was upon nomination from someone, or candidacy.
But it was definitly not election from those already AFS members. Note that it is not a definite nomination. Once you are trusted and appreciated, you are a member. Period. You do not have to be confirmed every year or so. I suppose that if someone gets totally out of it, they have a system to "remove" him though.
Ant
On 6/15/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
The big problem with Wikimedia as I see it, is that we are trying to apply something that works to build an encyclopedia (utter democracy, collaborative community decisions) to a world with different rules (legal, financial, etc.), and most of all, rules which can't really be changed with a community decision the way we change spelling or bibliography rules.
As is done now, legal or financial issues trump community decisions. We may not like the fact that [[Johnny Moneybags]] has to get deleted because of his lawyer, but that's life. There is no conflict, because the precedence rules are very clearly defined.
Steve
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org