[Foundation-l] wikicouncil

[Andrew Lih]

On 11/20/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Although there has already been a massive exchange
> > in the last 12
> > hours, I'm going to respond to the initial question.
> > One problem is
> > first mover (or first discusser) bias, and the
> > entire conversation has
> > gone down one way, when I think it's best to start
> > with a fresh look.
> >
> > What Damian mentioned about Wikicouncil as
> > "representative democracy"
> > is closest to what many Wikiretreaters in Frankfurt
> > expressed - that a
> > body of experienced, learned, informed, engaged and
> > knowledgeable
> > Wikimedians from different projects could form a
> > body with real powers
> > to decide on community matters and even for the
> > purpose of being a
> > body of electors for determinng the election of
> > board members.
> >
> > Wikicouncil folks would be responsible for things
> > that  that either we
> > (inappropriately) appeal to the "board of trustees"
> > to do now, or ask
> > developers to do on the fly. It's not fair to ask
> > Brion or Tim to be
> > decisionmaker for community decisions from random
> > parts of the
> > Wikimedia universe, and it's traditionally beyond
> > the scope of a
> > "Board of Trustees" to be managing down to the
> > approve/deny level of
> > individual projects on a week to week basis. That's
> > where a
> > Wikicouncil would come in.
> >
> > As for the argument that Wikicouncil would not be a
> > "direct
> > democracy," I mentioned this to Erik in Frankfurt,
> > but I believe there
> > is a less compelling argument for every Wikimedian
> > having equal vote
> > as any other Wikimedian for some value of "n" edits
> > and "m" months of
> > membership. The idea of every community member
> > getting equal say as in
> > a "true democracy" is not compelling since there is
> > no concept of
> > "natural citizenship" in Wikipedia - people join by
> > choice, they
> > self-identify for tasks, and they elevate. It is
> > different than a
> > citizen of a country or territory. As Damian noted,
> > many folks don't
> > know, nor do they care, for issues related to higher
> > level governance
> > or WMF board matters. They're there to write an
> > encyclopedia, create a
> > Wikiversity course, contribute to Commons, etc. A
> > Wikicouncil would
> > have the expertise of folks who have put in the
> > time, passion, energy
> > and thought into working with the WMF community
> > matters, while the
> > board would oversee the big picture matters. I
> > believe that the
> > Wikicouncil would clarify and solve many of the
> > problems we have now
> > with the scope of board and executive level matters.
> >
> > In this sense, I think the idea of a Wikicouncil is
> > quite familiar -
> > I'd imagine a Wikicouncil would be made up most of
> > folks you will find
> > right now in Wikiproject leadership, chapter
> > activities, committee
> > involvement, and the like. It would be a
> > formalization of what takes
> > place already, but where there is currently no
> > procedure or authority
> > to act on group consensus.
> >
> > That is a brief summary of what hopes I saw people
> > had in the idea for
> > a Wikicouncil. I cannot speak for all the folks, so
> > I invite other
> > folks to chime in on this.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
>
> I have not said anything because I am open to this
> idea being developed in previously undiscussed ways.
> But the above statments I do not understand.  How is
> this in any way similar to the ways things take place
> already?  It strikes me as anything but familiar.
>
> I am willing to withold critiscism as people
> brainstorm, but I find the above remarks quite
> disturbing.  It is a few of the worst parts of old
> ideas about the wikicouncil packaged as simply a
> formalization of current process.  I am sorry these
> ideas are in no way a representation of the way
> current process works.

Maybe you can enlighten us on the "worst parts of old ideas about the
Wikicouncil" because it's unclear what you're referring to.

My point is that the community coming together to decide on what the
community should do is familiar, in contrast to a "top down" system of
command given the questions we're facing of what role the board and
the executive should take.  (Anthere or another group at the retreat
called it "blob" simply to get away from the historical baggage of the
Wikicouncil name. Perhaps that's a good idea.) The Wikicouncil/blob
idea would build on what the community already does well but would
provide the formal structure to enact decisions with authority. It's
no panacea, and there are no specifics yet as to the makeup of or
appointment to council members.

But the concept of a group of dedicated, trusted and respected
Wikimedians from the community who can thoughtfully deliberate and
help lead community matters... I'm willing to hear how people view
this as a bad thing.

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)