[Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council - proposal sent to theBoard

[Philippe Beaudette]

All,

I decided to go back to the "source", as it were and re-read the resolution. 
Below are my concerns (inline).  My conclusion is that the members below (as 
well as any others the Board wishes to appoint) should become a working 
group - not a provisional council - and determine what the heck a VC would 
do, clear it legally, and begin to define the process of appointing people 
to it.  That does not, I believe, require a resolution this wordy or with 
this level of detail.

Philippe

--------------------------------------------------
>
> Whereas the Board,
>
> * recognizes the value of volunteers in Wikimedia projects and that
> their work is the very reason of their success,
> * values the volunteers' opinions and takes them into serious
> consideration when discussing issues involving the volunteers,
> * is of the opinion that these volunteers should have a strong say in
> changes in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws of the
> Wikimedia Foundation,

No problem, agree totally.

> * considers a Volunteer Council a valuable intermediary between
> volunteers and the Foundation, and as a good instrument to hear the
> voice of the volunteers:
>
> it is hereby resolved that:
>
> 1. The Board of Trustees hereby creates a Volunteer Council, to serve
> as a valuable complement to the Staff, Advisory Board and Board of
> Trustees.

Really?  Thought we were creating a provisional council, which would 
recommend to the Board how to create a volunteer council.  I'm uneasy about 
the board creating a volunteer council without knowing what it is to do. 
This resolution addresses what the VC will do, not separately what the PVC 
will do.  I believe the resolution should be re-written with that in mind.

> 2. Without restricting the generality of this provision the purposes
> of the Volunteer Council shall include:
>
>  1) Offering advice and support on issues relevant to the Wikimedia 
> Volunteers,
>  2) Recommanding the opening or closure of Wikimedia projects,
>  3) Approving changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of
> the Wikimedia Foundation and
>  4) Assist in establishing a clear separation between the legal
> responsibilities of the Wikimedia Foundation as an Internet Service
> Provider and the community decisions for the Wikimedia Projects.

I have concerns with sub-heading 2, 3, and 4.
For subheading two: (other than that the fact "recommending" is spelled 
wrong), I wonder what's wrong with the process we have now.
For subheading three: I think this is treacherous legal territory.
For subheading four: Again, I think this is treacherous legal territory. 
The words "Internet Service Provider" are carefully defined in law.  Our 
current by-laws support that definition, and I simply don't know what impact 
the proposed council will have on that.


>
> 3. The members from the Volunteer Council must be volunteers within 
> Wikimedia.

Defined how?  1 edit?  1000?  What about sysadmins who basically don't edit? 
If not defined here, who will define it?  The latter part of the resolution 
specifies that the PVC will advise as to the composition of the VC, so why 
is this resolution doing it?

> 4. The Provisional Volunteer Council shall report to the Board no
> later than September 1, 2008, which report shall include
> recommendations regarding the number and composition of the Volunteer
> Council, and how the members of the Council shall be chosen. Said
> report shall also include recommendations regarding the distribution
> of rights and responsibilities between the Board and Council, and any
> changes in the by-laws that may be necessary to implement this.

Except that we never created by resolution a PVC to report this.  I'm 
uncomfortable with the PVC (selected, unapproved by the community beyond 
Foundation-l) approving charter and by-law changes.  I'd be far more 
comfortable with such changes coming from the VC, once created.  Yes, that 
means creating an essentially neutered body and then assigning them 
responsibility, but at least they're a community selected group and not a 
foundation-l and effe selected group.


> 5. Except where it pertains to its own procedures, no decision of the
> Provisional Volunteer Council shall bind any person.

Of course it will.  Any rule-making binds people, even in selecting how to 
select people.

> 6. On receipt of the said report the Board shall take such steps as it
> deems necessary to confirm and empower the Volunteer Council, and
> provide for a transition of operations from the Provisional Volunteer
> Council.

What if the PVC returns a Bad Thing?  Isn't the Board empowered to say "no 
thanks, let's send this back for future study?"  If the PVC returns 
something that's even illegal (obviously not on purpose, but I didn't see a 
Florida lawyer on the PVC), or would take us out of compliance with funding 
requirements, etc, I don't want this resolution to bind the Board to create 
and empower the VC - even "as it deems necessary", which doesn't give the 
Board a lot of wiggle room.

> 7. Members of the Volunteer Council will not be financially
> compensated for their activity. On approval by the Board of Trustees
> expenses of the Provisional Volunteer Council and Volunteer Council in
> the fulfillment of their duties may be reimbursed.
> 8. The following people are hereby appointed as member of the
> Provisional Volunteer Council:
>
> Michael Bimmler, Mbimmler (Main project: de.wikipedia)
> Yaroslav Blanter, Yaroslav Blanter (Main project: ru.wikipedia)
> Lise Broer, Durova (Main projects: en.wikipedia and commons.wikimedia )
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard, Pathoschild (Main projects: en.wikisource
> and meta.wikimedia )
> Sydney Poore, FloNight (Main project: en.wikipedia)
> Milos Rancic, Millosh (Main project: sr.wikipedia)
> Ray Saintonge, Eclecticology (Main project: en.wikisource, en.wikipedia)
> Andrew Whitworth, Whiteknight (Main project: en.wikibooks)
> Michal Zlatkovsky, Timichal (Main project: cs.wikipedia)
>
> 9. The members of the Provisional Volunteer Council may on a 2/3 vote
> of all its members add such additional members as they may deem
> necessary and useful to their deliberations.

This one strikes me as a bit cabalish.  I would think they could ask people 
to serve as advisors, but if the Board appoints a PVC, that ought to remain 
the PVC, just as when the Board appointed the election committee, we stayed 
the election committee, though we have the freedom to ask advice of experts 
(Tim Starling, for example, on technical issues).