[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

[Milos Rancic]

I agree with Lodewijk about a need that the Board makes a resolution
which makes VC, too. However, I agree with all solutions which move
things forward in a good direction. Nathan's proposal addresses some
problems, but delays VC creation; which is a valid option.

I want to say one more thing: Without VC all suggestions made by
members of the community are non-mandatory for the Board and the Board
is solely responsible for driving everything related to Wikimedia.
Only after creation of VC community members will be able to have
influence over other things than choosing an admin or a checkuser or
even a part of board members. So, I really don't realize opinions
which are going toward delaying of VC creation (while I think that
that opinion is a valid one).

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:56 AM, effe iets anders
<effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nathan, all,
>
>  I appreciate your efforts, and thank you for thinking with us. Although I'd
>  like to leave it up to the Board what they vote on, I have to say I have
>  some thoughts on this version.
>
>  As I tried to explain in my recap email, I think that it would actually be
>  good to make a clear statement that we create a VC (but not defined yet, you
>  could say we "reserve the seat") because that seems to be the general
>  consensus. However, at the same time, we create a provisional council, which
>  will give advice on the details.
>
>  This proposal gives even less then the proposal which was submitted to the
>  board earlier, what the boundaries are within which the PVC has to operate.
>  What do we define on beforehand? For the PVC this is an important this,
>  because it gives something to start with, some definition that is being set.
>
>
>  Furthermore, I think it is not wise to put the decisions on the members in
>  the hands of one person. Imho it should be a board or something that decides
>  on the members, eventually the volunteers, maybe on recommandation of a
>  person or a few people.
>
>  What I'd like to see in the resolution is the intention to create a
>  volunteers body, the creation of a group to fish out all details, the
>  boundaries between which they have to work, and a set of initial members to
>  this group. I think that with the change of one or two words in the proposal
>  the main concerns have been taken care of.
>
>  But, as I said, after all it is up to the Board of Trustees to accept or not
>  either of the proposals.
>
>  with kind regards,
>
>  Lodewijk
>
>  2008/4/3, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>:
>
>
> >
>  > Given some of the concerns that have been raised, I'd like to propose
>  > an alternative resolution for consideration.
>  >
>  > "The Board of Trustees, by the passage of this resolution, endorses
>  > the creation of a committee of community members to provide guidance
>  > on the issue of a Volunteer Council.
>  >
>  > The committee is charged by the Board to consider and report on
>  > the following points:
>  >
>  > * Determine if there are needs in the community that necessitate
>  > the creation of the Volunteer Council or similar body and identify these
>  > needs specifically
>  > * The role of the body in addressing the identified needs
>  > * The structure and role of the Volunteer Council within the Wikimedia
>  > Foundation
>  > * How the Council should be convened, and what mechanism should
>  > be created for its dissolution if any
>  > * Other issues important to the creation and operation of the Volunteer
>  > Council as identified by the committee
>  >
>  > The committee on the Volunteer Council will consist of volunteers
>  > selected by the committee facilitator - identified by the Board as
>  > Lodewijk Gelauff. Reports on the activity and progress of the
>  > committee should be submitted to the Board monthly.
>  >
>  > On September 1st, 2008, the Board requests that the committee
>  > present a complete report that addresses each point outlined above
>  > in full. The Board thanks the committee in advance for its service,
>  > and recognizes the valuable work that has already been done by
>  > Lodewijk Gelauff on this issue."
>  >
>  > I think that a resolution of this fashion sidesteps some specific
>  > problems:
>  >
>  > 1) It doesn't create the Volunteer Council prematurely
>  > 2) It doesn't have legal implications - the committee has no formal
>  > authority but does have the imprimatur of the Board
>  > 3) It creates the working group sought to make a determination, and
>  > sets a specific timeline for progress and resolution
>  > 4) It allows the committee to request resources such as a private
>  > mailing list
>  >
>  > Thoughts? Criticism?
>  >
>  >
>  > Nathan
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>