[Foundation-l] wikicouncil

[Anthere]

Birgitte SB wrote:
> "worst parts of old ideas"
> 
> 
> * being a body of electors for determinng the election
> of board members
> 
> This is bad idea which I have said alot about in the
> archives.  I think it is the most useless reason for
> creating a council.

Ì would be interested to hear a summary of the reasons why it is such a 
bad idea.
My own perspective is very different.

Rough estimate perhaps, but I would gather that the majority of editors 
  and readers have no idea or do not care there is a Foundation. And 
that is understandable. That's why only about a 1000 people vote at each 
election.

Amongst these 1000 people, how many really understand what the 
Foundation is about ? I'd say very few. I have memories of editors 
asking us repeatedly to block this person, mediate this conflict, decide 
which article version was fine. And that is not at all what the 
Foundation is about. By basically refusing to play this role, people are 
asking far less now. But it took much personal effort to voluntarily 
decide to not look at this personal conflict and rather focus my 
attention on issues such as "will we have enough cash to pay next 
servers bill".
It is quite a bit discouraging to see people consider the board is here 
to mediate disputes (to which the board understand very little, because 
it does not have the daily background good editors have), whilst they 
can explain the board that "no, there is no reason to hire people to do 
a certain job", as if they had a sort of superior knowledge and 
understanding of what is going on.

Generally, everyone is welcome to make comments on the other groups 
activities, but we should try to admit that those working on a daily 
basis on a specific issues, *may* know better what is needed. It is like 
a non-married with no children man explaining to a mother of three how 
she should use tissue diapers instead of disposable ones because it will 
save the planet and as such is more ethical :-) She can listen to him, 
but in the end, she is the one changing the diaper...

But well... I may be wandering a bit here...

What really bugs me in the end, is this.
If we have at least 1000 people knowing about the Foundation, and caring 
enough to vote for its board, we have far less people actually knowing 
what is going on, and having an idea what the job encompasses.

I am still perplex of the past election candidates. About half of them 
were people I knew. People involved at various levels in the Foundation 
itself or in local associations. They have a minimum knowledge about the 
role of a board member, and at least, we know they are interested in 
these administratives tasks. We may appreciate their job and 
personnality more or less, but at least, they showed their willingness 
of being involved.

But about half of the candidates, I hardly know. Or did not know at all. 
Because they had never been beyond their local project. Never tried to 
get involved in making something like a press release, or helping on 
otrs, or giving conferences, or giving a hand at Wikimania. Some had 
done *nothing* at all at the organisational level.
Still, they get a lot of support from equally unknown people, because 
they have a lot of edits, because they are nice and helpful generally.
They could be elected for these qualities regardless of the qualities 
they could show on the board.

I can't help find that it is weird. I do not feel the board is *above* 
people. It is another job. It is serving the project, just as editors 
are serving the project, just as developers are serving the project. 
Editors get sysops according to the quality of their work on the 
project. Developers get more access according to the quality of their 
work as developers. But board members... basically, there is no 
requirement except that being appreciated/recognised by the largest 
number of people for their activity as editors.

I am not sure indirect elections thanks to a "wikiblob" are the best way 
to solve this actually. There may be different ways to fix that. But the 
current situation strikes me as non sustainable in the long term. Until 
now, choices were great in the end :-) but if we expand the board with 
for example 9 elected people (not very likely), I am more hesitant.

Dunno. Maybe there should be requirements on candidates to show 
involvment in organisational issues (but that's hard to measure). Or 
maybe the candidates should go through a sort of screening procedure.

Just thoughts. Do not jump on me :-)

Anthere