Please point to any policy on P2PU that purports that the voice of the community can affect changes in the structure.
I certainly was not aware of, nor made aware of, any place or system within P2PU where a person could actually cite policy to enact changes.
If the meaning and nature of "rough consensus" and the specific issue, is determined by the existing power structure, and that power structure is not available to be modified, than what you have really is a oligarchic benevolence government. That's not open in any sense of the word with which I'm familiar. I do not like dictators, be they single persons, or a dozen oligarchics. This isn't ancient Greece, and any system of "We'll listen to you as long as we like to but we're not under any requirement to do anything the public wants" isn't an open governance system.
Policies vague to the point where a government can do whatever they want anyway, are worthless policies.
In a message dated 1/24/2011 1:06:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, holtzermann17@gmail.com writes:
At present, the policy is supposed to be based on "rough consensus" - so if there wasn't a consensus around the issues you brought up, then, yeah, the discussion was likely to just be over.
I certainly was not aware of, nor made aware of, any place or system within P2PU where a person could actually cite policy to enact changes.
It's true that they are not particularly driven by policy, and don't have a particularly clear roadmap (which I think is more a historical fluke than anything), and so don't have a policy for changing the roadmap. My personal hope is to help get the roadmap in order, but I hope that change in that institution is always going to be about what people *do* and not about policy.
If the meaning and nature of "rough consensus" and the specific issue, is determined by the existing power structure, and that power structure is not available to be modified, than what you have really is a oligarchic benevolence government.
I don't reify power structures in the way you appear to do. I prefer to think about things like "what wiki does the organisation use, and what features does that wiki have?" If I don't like something, I either look for a solution or else put up with the problem until I'm totally sick of it. I have enough problems of that nature that I don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is, suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete issues outside of political theory?
This isn't ancient Greece, and any system of "We'll listen to you as long as we like to but we're not under any requirement to do anything the public wants" isn't an open governance system.
I can't see any more clear illustration of the difference between governance and government. At P2PU, there is no transcendent or royal "we" that has the power to do, or to not do, what "the public" wants. It's true that there is a division between those who have the power to write checks and those who don't have that power, but that doesn't mean that the non-check-writers lack other forms of power.
Joe Corneli said:
*I like P2PU a lot, but one very technical shortcoming in my view is their wiki (http://wiki.p2pu.org/w/page/12427308/FrontPage, http://wiki.p2pu.org/w/changes). There has been considerable talk about how to replace it, but nothing has happened yet * * * *I wonder (and this is just as a user of both Wikiversity and P2PU) whether it would be possible to create a "P2PU" namespace within Wikiversity, and use that as the P2PU wiki? That would be one way to synergize the two projects, and it *might* be preferable to do that than for P2PU to start their own Mediawiki-based wiki elsewhere. What do you think?*
I think this is a great idea. What can we do to progress the suggestion? I am forwarding it to Stian.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.comwrote:
I certainly was not aware of, nor made aware of, any place or system
within
P2PU where a person could actually cite policy to enact changes.
It's true that they are not particularly driven by policy, and don't have a particularly clear roadmap (which I think is more a historical fluke than anything), and so don't have a policy for changing the roadmap. My personal hope is to help get the roadmap in order, but I hope that change in that institution is always going to be about what people *do* and not about policy.
If the meaning and nature of "rough consensus" and the specific issue, is determined by the existing power structure, and that power structure is
not
available to be modified, than what you have really is a oligarchic benevolence government.
I don't reify power structures in the way you appear to do. I prefer to think about things like "what wiki does the organisation use, and what features does that wiki have?" If I don't like something, I either look for a solution or else put up with the problem until I'm totally sick of it. I have enough problems of that nature that I don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is, suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete issues outside of political theory?
This isn't ancient Greece, and any system of "We'll listen to you as long as we like to but we're not under any requirement to do
anything
the public wants" isn't an open governance system.
I can't see any more clear illustration of the difference between governance and government. At P2PU, there is no transcendent or royal "we" that has the power to do, or to not do, what "the public" wants. It's true that there is a division between those who have the power to write checks and those who don't have that power, but that doesn't mean that the non-check-writers lack other forms of power.
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Joe Corneli said:
*I like P2PU a lot, but one very technical shortcoming in my view is their wiki (http://wiki.p2pu.org/w/page/12427308/FrontPage, http://wiki.p2pu.org/w/changes). There has been considerable talk about how to replace it, but nothing has happened yet * * * *I wonder (and this is just as a user of both Wikiversity and P2PU) whether it would be possible to create a "P2PU" namespace within Wikiversity, and use that as the P2PU wiki? That would be one way to synergize the two projects, and it *might* be preferable to do that than for P2PU to start their own Mediawiki-based wiki elsewhere. What do you think?*
I think this is a great idea. What can we do to progress the suggestion? I am forwarding it to Stian.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.comwrote:
I certainly was not aware of, nor made aware of, any place or system
within
P2PU where a person could actually cite policy to enact changes.
It's true that they are not particularly driven by policy, and don't have a particularly clear roadmap (which I think is more a historical fluke than anything), and so don't have a policy for changing the roadmap. My personal hope is to help get the roadmap in order, but I hope that change in that institution is always going to be about what people *do* and not about policy.
If the meaning and nature of "rough consensus" and the specific issue, is determined by the existing power structure, and that power structure is
not
available to be modified, than what you have really is a oligarchic benevolence government.
I don't reify power structures in the way you appear to do. I prefer to think about things like "what wiki does the organisation use, and what features does that wiki have?" If I don't like something, I either look for a solution or else put up with the problem until I'm totally sick of it. I have enough problems of that nature that I don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is, suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete issues outside of political theory?
This isn't ancient Greece, and any system of "We'll listen to you as long as we like to but we're not under any requirement to do
anything
the public wants" isn't an open governance system.
I can't see any more clear illustration of the difference between governance and government. At P2PU, there is no transcendent or royal "we" that has the power to do, or to not do, what "the public" wants. It's true that there is a division between those who have the power to write checks and those who don't have that power, but that doesn't mean that the non-check-writers lack other forms of power.
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Not made up Joe, actual. I have an issue with something in the system. I would like to change. That's a real issue, not made up. There is no effective method I can persue to effect this change, outside of getting agreement from the upper power structure. There is no effective method by which I can gain admission to the upper power structure. That's a real issue Joe, not theory.
Our Wiki environment, here and elsewhere within the sister projects does *not* work in this manner. Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain consensus which can actually make changes, etc. That is not a benevolent oligarchy, that is a representative democracy, or as near as we can get to that. Without a method by which persons can gain admission to the corridors of power, you do not have anything close to a democracy. That's why I oppose any involvement with P2PU.
These are issues Joe which have actually had a direct effect in an actual situation. Not theory.
I have enough problems of that nature that I
don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is,
suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete
issues outside of political theory?
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com To: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] what is wikiversity for? (Re: US gov't awards $2B in edu....
I certainly was not aware of, nor made aware of, any place or system within
P2PU where a person could actually cite policy to enact changes.
It's true that they are not particularly driven by policy, and don't
have a particularly clear roadmap (which I think is more a historical
fluke than anything), and so don't have a policy for changing the
roadmap. My personal hope is to help get the roadmap in order, but I
hope that change in that institution is always going to be about what
people *do* and not about policy.
If the meaning and nature of "rough consensus" and the specific issue, is
determined by the existing power structure, and that power structure is not
available to be modified, than what you have really is a oligarchic
benevolence government.
I don't reify power structures in the way you appear to do. I prefer
to think about things like "what wiki does the organisation use, and
what features does that wiki have?" If I don't like something, I
either look for a solution or else put up with the problem until I'm
totally sick of it. I have enough problems of that nature that I
don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is,
suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete
issues outside of political theory?
This isn't ancient Greece, and any system of "We'll listen to
you as long as we like to but we're not under any requirement to do anything
the public wants" isn't an open governance system.
I can't see any more clear illustration of the difference between
governance and government. At P2PU, there is no transcendent or royal
"we" that has the power to do, or to not do, what "the public" wants.
It's true that there is a division between those who have the power to
write checks and those who don't have that power, but that doesn't
mean that the non-check-writers lack other forms of power.
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org
There is no effective method I can persue to effect this change, outside of getting agreement from the upper power structure.
/me wonders if you really consider waiting a couple years for an election, and voting for someone else to really be an effective method of making change?
And if all else fails, this is free-content. You have the right to fork, which is the typical method of effecting change in the open source world when all else has failed. (yes i know, open source/free software != free culture, but its close enough). Its even better than voting, since anyone can do it (you don't need a plurality or majority depending on voting system), and you can do it any time. No waiting for elections :)
Our Wiki environment, here and elsewhere within the sister projects does *not* work in this manner. Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain consensus which can actually make changes, etc.
Back in the early days, Wikipedia was owned by a porn company. By comparison (without being overly familiar with it), p2pu seems more open.
-bawolff
2011/1/24 Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com:
Not made up Joe, actual. I have an issue with something in the system. I would like to change. That's a real issue, not made up. There is no effective method I can persue to effect this change, outside of getting agreement from the upper power structure. There is no effective method by which I can gain admission to the upper power structure. That's a real issue Joe, not theory.
Our Wiki environment, here and elsewhere within the sister projects does *not* work in this manner. Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain consensus which can actually make changes, etc. That is not a benevolent oligarchy, that is a representative democracy, or as near as we can get to that. Without a method by which persons can gain admission to the corridors of power, you do not have anything close to a democracy. That's why I oppose any involvement with P2PU.
These are issues Joe which have actually had a direct effect in an actual situation. Not theory.
I have enough problems of that nature that I
don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is,
suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete
issues outside of political theory?
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com To: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] what is wikiversity for? (Re: US gov't awards $2B in edu....
I certainly was not aware of, nor made aware of, any place or system within
P2PU where a person could actually cite policy to enact changes.
It's true that they are not particularly driven by policy, and don't
have a particularly clear roadmap (which I think is more a historical
fluke than anything), and so don't have a policy for changing the
roadmap. My personal hope is to help get the roadmap in order, but I
hope that change in that institution is always going to be about what
people *do* and not about policy.
If the meaning and nature of "rough consensus" and the specific issue, is
determined by the existing power structure, and that power structure is not
available to be modified, than what you have really is a oligarchic
benevolence government.
I don't reify power structures in the way you appear to do. I prefer
to think about things like "what wiki does the organisation use, and
what features does that wiki have?" If I don't like something, I
either look for a solution or else put up with the problem until I'm
totally sick of it. I have enough problems of that nature that I
don't need to create (or debate) made up ones. I mean, the thing is,
suppose it is as you say? What difference does it make to concrete
issues outside of political theory?
This isn't ancient Greece, and any system of "We'll listen to
you as long as we like to but we're not under any requirement to do anything
the public wants" isn't an open governance system.
I can't see any more clear illustration of the difference between
governance and government. At P2PU, there is no transcendent or royal
"we" that has the power to do, or to not do, what "the public" wants.
It's true that there is a division between those who have the power to
write checks and those who don't have that power, but that doesn't
mean that the non-check-writers lack other forms of power.
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Because Bawolff, the entire thread or sub-thread was predicated on the notion that *we* should work with *them*. Are we going to start giving other closed systems privileged access as well? I'm sure other systems would like such an opportunity.
To me, the mere fact that their *content* is open (whatever that means in actuality) isn't enough, for me to want to work with them. The system they have in place is too disjoint from our system, for me to advocate working with them. The solution I proposed would change that.
We (meaning Wikimedia in general) work with all sorts of projects that aren't open-governed. When we decide to work with someone, it should be because it furthers our goals (what our "goals" are is an entirely other question though) . Refusing to work with someone because it might help some other organization whose goals/values/mission/whatever are different then ours seems short sighted.
With that said, this is sort of another issue. My main point from my previous email (or at least what I was trying to say) is that you can have open governance that is not a democracy, and you can have a democratic system that is not "open".
Are we going to start giving other closed systems privileged access as well? I'm sure other systems would like such an opportunity.
Well according to http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:School_and_university_projects (I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with Wikiversity as a project, so I'm basing this off what I read), teachers from "real" brick-and-motor schools are encouraged to participate. Considering many such institutions are business which are in no way "democratic", I'd say we already do do that (or want to anyways).
-bawolff
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Because Bawolff, the entire thread or sub-thread was predicated on the notion that *we* should work with *them*. Are we going to start giving other closed systems privileged access as well? I'm sure other systems would like such an opportunity.
To me, the mere fact that their *content* is open (whatever that means in actuality) isn't enough, for me to want to work with them. The system they have in place is too disjoint from our system, for me to advocate working with them. The solution I proposed would change that.
Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain consensus which can actually make changes, etc.
I still don't see what you want to change other than the way the "political" structures of P2PU work - the way decisions are made, but not the decisions themselves, so to speak. In particular, it seems to me you're saying you want a "clear box" in place of the current "black box". But, #1, I'm not so sure it *is* a black box. To my mind it's just a community of people, more or less transparent depending on how well you get to know them. And, #2, as I indicated earlier, I don't think swapping day-to-day community-driven consensus for some other form of decisions is actually a very good idea (even *when* things like board elections are introduced as part of incorporation and nonprofit status). Nor do I think it's likely to happen. In particular, my guess is that the board will play more of an "advisory" role, much like the current council.
To my mind there are other forms of transparency that seem more useful. Clearly political and associated power structures have a very concrete importance to you, and some others are likely feel the same way. And yet, whatever their political views may be, the P2PU community seems on average happy with the way things work there. I do hope that you will not poison the water for possible Wikiversity-P2PU teamups. I also think that given your interests in transparency, a most appropriate venue for further discussion of P2PU politics would be the P2PU community list, but I can nearly guarantee you that unless you word your critiques very carefully and constructively, no one there will be much moved by them. I'm not going to continue to discuss P2PU politics here.
Best wishes, Joe
Wjhonson is pointing out a valid problem with P2PU, and almost all other similar initiatives I know. For a long time Wikieducator had the same closed decision making set up, and by the time it did implement a form of democratic governance, the "culture" of the space was quite particular, making change proposals even more difficult to pitch and test.
But what Joe suggests, is offering/suggesting P2PU use Wikiversity as their wiki platform. P2PU would be subject to Wikiversity governance structures (which also has its problems). There is at least 2 organisations that I know of using Wikiversity, and they also do not have an open governance structure. The University of Canberrahttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/University_of_Canberra (UC), and its National Institute of Sport Studieshttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/UCNISS (UCNISS). The UC space is informal - a testing ground used by a small number of staff who hope to inspire change at UC, along the lines of the openness in the wiki development process and governance structure to some extent. The UCNISS space is a more formal use, where staff are encouraged by their director to use Wikiversity for teaching and research developments.
I don't see how P2PU's use of Wikiversity would be any different. All are ultimately governed by Wikiversity's governance structure, while their own communities choose their own structures and processes, just as individuals on Wikiversity do, as do individuals in those organisations.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.comwrote:
Any person has a roadmap / pathway to gain power, effect changes, gain consensus which can actually make changes, etc.
I still don't see what you want to change other than the way the "political" structures of P2PU work - the way decisions are made, but not the decisions themselves, so to speak. In particular, it seems to me you're saying you want a "clear box" in place of the current "black box". But, #1, I'm not so sure it *is* a black box. To my mind it's just a community of people, more or less transparent depending on how well you get to know them. And, #2, as I indicated earlier, I don't think swapping day-to-day community-driven consensus for some other form of decisions is actually a very good idea (even *when* things like board elections are introduced as part of incorporation and nonprofit status). Nor do I think it's likely to happen. In particular, my guess is that the board will play more of an "advisory" role, much like the current council.
To my mind there are other forms of transparency that seem more useful. Clearly political and associated power structures have a very concrete importance to you, and some others are likely feel the same way. And yet, whatever their political views may be, the P2PU community seems on average happy with the way things work there. I do hope that you will not poison the water for possible Wikiversity-P2PU teamups. I also think that given your interests in transparency, a most appropriate venue for further discussion of P2PU politics would be the P2PU community list, but I can nearly guarantee you that unless you word your critiques very carefully and constructively, no one there will be much moved by them. I'm not going to continue to discuss P2PU politics here.
Best wishes, Joe
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org