[Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council - proposal sent to the Board

[Ray Saintonge]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> Birgitte SB wrote:
>   
>> --- Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> VC should, also, take care about all things which
>>> are related to the
>>> community. This means that admins, bureaucrats,
>>> stewards etc. should
>>> be responsible to VC, not to the Board.
>>>       
>> Admins and bureaucrats should be responsible to
>> community consensus within each project.  Perhaps
>> certain community policies (i.e. EDP) might be
>> required to be approved by the VC.  The community as a
>> whole might be tasked to find a consensus within X
>> boundary set by the VC or fork.  But individuals in
>> these trusted community positions are not now
>> responsible to the board nor should they be
>> responsible to the VC.
>>
>> Birgitte SB
>>     
> I presume he is conceiving the VC as a super arbcom.
> That's not what I think the VC should be about, but many people do see 
> arbcom as role of VC, and I respect that.
It's not a part of my vision either.  I think that a VC functioning as a 
super arbcom would soon become an inescapable rabbit hole. It's 
conceivable that a VC could eventually support the creation of a super 
arbcom, but that would at least involve an entirely different set of 
people.  I do consider this a low priority issue.

I believe in project autonomy as an important principle.  I believe that 
a VC can draft standard policies, but that it could not force any 
project to adopt them.  It can probably step into projects that are on 
life support, but should most assuredly not be meddling in the affairs 
of a project that is operational.

Milos and I are both on the proposed PVC list, and there are obviously 
issues that we would approach differently, but I don't see these 
differences as irreconcilable.  The problem, though, when we express 
ourselves on a public list is the tendency of readers to assume that the 
writer's views will necessarily prevail.  If one person's views really 
are so offbeat and radical it is an act of fundamental distrust to 
believe that the other members will be unable to provide a 
counterweight.  No person on the list is authorized to represent the 
official view of the PVC, because that Council has not yet been 
established, and it has not yet named anyone to be its official 
spokesperson.

I am often led to believe that the biggest enemies of openness are those 
who complain most about the lack of openness.  Someone who wants 
openness needs to respect openly expressed views.  If an open-minded 
person expresses himself openly and honestly, and the only responses are 
critical without constructive alternatives he will soon be looking for a 
friendlier environment in which to express himself. Openness will be the 
fist victim of that.

In the above exchange, Milos and Birgitte expressed views which could be 
considered as conflicting, but they are not beyond solution.  Neither, 
as a reasonable person will treat his own views as inflexible, and each 
will be happy to look for common ground.

One question that has been asked is what problem are we trying to 
solve.  Perhaps that problem is with adversarial attitudes, and the 
tendency of some people to approach issues with a presumption of distrust.

Ec