[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

[Anthere]

Gavin Chait wrote:
>>>Gavin : "Project management may not be about content generation alone.
>>>It is also about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and
>>>answerable to the organisation at large."
> 
> 
>>Here I don't know if you are right or wrong in your understanding of
>>Gavin's sentence. My take is that his "disputes settling" applies to
>>the disputes *the organisation* could be thrown into, not to an edit
>>war in Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> Here I can clarify.  What a project does is irrelevant in terms of the 
> system as long as it meets the general objectives of the organisation.  The 
> project manager alone is responsible for what happens there.  If a dispute 
> looks as if it will involve the organisation then it is the duty of the 
> project manager to bring that to the organisation's attention.  If it is 
> merely an edit war or copyright or local dispute then it is part of their 
> daily problem and not the Foundation's.
> 
> If you think of it in terms of regular charitable foundations:  they 
> research and select projects to fund, projects are championed by outsiders 
> or are initiated by the foundation, they offer advice and know-how (where 
> possible), they monitor the activities of their funded projects, and they 
> dive in if things go wrong (if they choose to).  If a project gets caught 
> doing something illegal (or even just awkward) they can intervene, isolate, 
> amputate, ... or risk looking foolish.
> 
> In Wiki Foundation's case, you have overlap.  You are directly involved in 
> terms of infrastructure, methodology and physical involvement.
> 
> Delphine writes:  "I believe that *not using* is harder than *not having*"
> 
> Creating a firewall between the foundation and its supported projects 
> implies *not using* and that will be very hard.  Legally, what happens if 
> you host and have the capacity to intervene?

If you host and are liable, you need to be able to *use*. You may not be 
liable and have no ability to correct what you are liable for. If you 
can not intervene, you should not liable. Period.

(understand me well. By "intervening", I do not mean "desysoping" an 
admin, because he is blocking editors out of process; By "intervening", 
I mean "removing" permanently content which may get us straight to 
court. The first is threatening a local organisation, the second might 
cause the closure of the whole project. If the Foundation may be sued 
for hosting an illegal project, then it is the Foundation entire right 
to stop hosting this project. If another organisation wants to take the 
risk of hosting illegal content removed from our sites, then it is up to 
these organisations.


> This means you need to structure the Foundation in such a way that you can't 
> intervene without the approval of a project leader (for instance, you create 
> / nominate a head of Wikipedia who has absolute power).  Reporting and 
> accountability become even more important in such a distributed hierarchy.

At some point in history, Wikipedia (at least the english version) had 
such a project leader : Larry Sanger, who was Jimbo's employee. It 
lasted for the full first year of Wikipedia. It certainly was necessary 
at the beginning, but it would have been a disaster to proceed with a head.
Generally, I believe the projects will not accept *anyone* as head of a 
project, with absolute power. The projects organise themselves 
independently of the Foundation,  only respecting the general goal of 
the project and a couple of core rules (licence, wikilove and neutrality 
essentially). The rest of the organisation (the internal organisation) 
is pretty much left to each project and may be sometimes pretty 
different based on the culture and size of each project.  I think this 
is precisely what explains in great part the success of Wikipedia. The 
rules are very few and basically easy for most reasonable person to 
understand and accept.
Add hierarchy and complex organisational rules, and you will make most 
editors feel like in prison. Most editors stay here because it is fun, 
they are not bugged by a boss and they feel they can themselves impact 
the rules and the direction of the project.

I feel that over time, what you suggest is however being created. There 
is no "official head" of a project, but for many project, a group of 
trusted editors constitute a sort of a head.


> And that comes back to what I suggested at the beginning.  A loose 
> collection of independent organisations / projects (and forgive me for using 
> terminology that may not be appropriate) that are accountable to a central 
> Foundation.
> 
> Before you start hiring office space it is essential to know what will be 
> done there.  And before a lot of the ideas presented in this mailing list 
> get lost, perhaps it is a good idea to create a closed wiki to build the 
> organisation structure, tasks, methodology, conflict resolution, job 
> descriptions ... and a constitution.

Ahum. Just for reference, we do have closed wikis.
I know of at least three.
The internal wiki is restricted to board members and some board members 
of local chapters
The spc wiki is restricted to members of the special project committees
The board wiki is restricted to WMF board members plus Brad.

> The Economist states boldly on every contents page:  first published in 1843 
> to take part in "a severe contest between intelligence, which presses 
> forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."
> 
> We could do worse than start from there.  Once you have everything, then you'll 
> know where your office should be, how big it needs to be, and what will be 
> done there. 

Given the current size of the office, it could be hosted in my village ;-)