[Foundation-l] wikicouncil

[Anthere]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming#Approach

In particular

No criticism
It is often emphasized that in group brainstorming, criticism should be 
put 'on hold'. Instead of immediately stating what might be wrong with 
an idea, the participants focus on extending or adding to it, reserving 
criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending 
judgment, you create a supportive atmosphere where participants feel 
free to generate unusual ideas.

Thanks for not killing ideas in the egg. That's not helpful in the long 
run imho.

Anthere



Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 11/19/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>The issue has been raised often, the possible creation of a council.
> 
> 
> Indeed. I'm not a big fan of the idea, but it is a nice buzzword that
> many people seem to identify with, regardless of the fact that they
> all seem to mean different things when they are using it. We already
> have quite a lot of bureaucracy, and I'd like to avoid the creation of
> new structures that are either redundant or potentially harmful. So
> let's see what possible functions a council could serve:
> 
> * Advise the Board and CEO -- that's what the Advisory Board is for.
> I'd be open to structuring it in such a way to allow experts from the
> community an easy way in.
> * Make project-level decisions -- why replace direct democracy and
> consensus-based processes with a representative bureaucracy? I'd
> rather see more project-wide votes.
> * Act as project representatives to chapters and Foundation, to deal
> with confidential information -- we already have the committees. We
> still haven't figured out a way to make them work, especially the
> SP-COM, which is exactly tasked with developing partnerships around
> the projects. I'd rather restructure these existing groups than
> inventing a completely new one.
> * Raise awareness of the Foundation within the projects -- a group
> that merely exists to raise awareness can form without the permission
> of the Foundation. Indeed, such informal groups are probably far less
> likely to cause trouble than a "Wikicouncil".
> 
> My biggest fear is that we start with something poorly defined, or
> with a very narrow scope, and it evolves into a decision-making
> structure that replaces existing community processes.Where these
> processes are currently dysfunctional, I don't think replacing them
> with a new system is likely to be a good idea. The causes of the
> dysfunction may only be moved to a different level.
> 
> I suggest, as an alternative, that the existing committee and
> subcommittee structures be reformed and surrounded with completely
> open "Open Interest Groups" without legal authority. I will make a
> specific proposal for that in the near future.