[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Anthere]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter <troyhunter0 at lycos.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
> 
> 
> With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee
> a minimal level of openness in the committees:
> - Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted
> against it?
> - Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
> 
> Erik


Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.

A little bit of explanation may help understand.

Cycle of life of a resolution.

When a resolution is started, it is in the "draft stage". All members 
may comment it on the talk page and modifications are made accordingly 
to the comments. Very few resolutions failed overall, because we usually 
modify resolutions until we know most of us will be happy with. A couple 
of time though, we did not give enough time to the draft stage. This is 
typically the case of this specific resolution.

After a while, the resolution is put in the "motion to vote" stage. Two 
board members must approve the motion.

Once two members have approved the "motion to vote" stage, the 
resolution goes to the vote stage.

During the vote stage, the resolution must not be modified (at least, 
this was how things worked first. Now, we accept minor modifications). 
We should all vote, but if three board members approve (majority), the 
resolution is passed.

--------

The resolution committee conduct was proposed by Angela. If I remember 
well, we both motionned it to vote very quickly (the same day). Too 
quickly... This was a mistake.
Michael then opposed it and explained why on the talk page. Seeing there 
was disagreement, Jimbo abstained. Tim later opposed as well and gave 
his arguments.

The arguments given by Tim and Michael and which support their 
opposition make sense.


The resolution was

The Foundation grants authority to committees to fulfil certain tasks. 
In return, the Board asks that the committees report back on their 
activities, and have open and transparent processes wherever possible.
It is hereby resolved that:
	1 	Every committee shall submit a report to the Board monthly.
	2 	Committee members conduct their activities publicly wherever 
possible, using internal means of communication only when 
confidentiality is required.
	3 	Committee membership shall be an open and transparent process, with 
all committee members being informed of changes to membership, and 
outsiders understanding how they may join the committee.


The arguments raised were

* It is always possibly to conduct activities publicly. Committees 
should conduct themselves in the best interest of the Foundation, 
whatever that may be.
* When is confidentiality required (as opposed to desireable)?
* Point three doesn't specify who will inform committee members; it is 
in the passive voice, and if taken literaly it says committee members 
violate the resolution by not being informed, which doesn't make a lot 
of sense.
* this resolution seems to aim towards greater openness and 
transparency, which are desirable things, but like all desireable things 
there are costs and trade-offs involved. The resoultion does not seem 
informed of this problem of trade-offs. It says "using internal means of 
communication only when confidentiality is required" but without specify 
things like what are the criteria for determining if confidentiality is 
required, or, who makes this determination.
* This resolution seems like an attempt to use broad, general rules to 
address a specific problem. Maybe its a good idea in this case but if we 
get in the habit of addressing procedural problems with Board 
resolutions, the result will likely be heavy-handed management by the 
Board, which I don't think would be desirable - for one thing it would 
not be very efficient.

I think all those arguments make sense. This resolution is too fluffy to 
be a good resolution. Point 1 is a very good point. Point 2 raises the 
issue of confidentiality (who defines what is confidential. what happens 
when there is a breach of confidentiality ?) Point 3 can not be a 
"rule", but only a guideline.

-------


 > - Is any similar resolution planned for the future?

None is in the drafting stage.