[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

Milos Rancic millosh at gmail.com
Fri Apr 4 09:41:32 UTC 2008

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  In the existing proposal there is a need to describe what such a council be
>  like, what kind of mandate it has. From my perspective, I will only be
>  interested in such a council if it not only seeks power (not a good thing)
>  but also takes responsibilities (the reason why it might work). When the
>  council is only to jabber about what OTHERS have to do, I prefer the status
>  quo where everyone is allowed to jabber equally and do whatever without
>  having commitments.

According to my ideas, VC members (so, not PVC members, which are a
group formed to make a proposal) should have two functions: (1) to
delegate will from their own projects (so, generally, not to decide
about any global policy alone) and (2) to work inside of VC's working
groups (as bigger that body is, as much working groups it will be able
to have; probably two or three working groups at the beginning).

>  The only and the first moment when the board HAS to state something is when
>  it deputises its power to this proposed council. I consider it irresponsible
>  to give a blank check to this group of well meaning people.

Actually, things are a little bit paradoxically: Board members (Jimmy
and Florence) proposed the creation of VC (so, limiting their own
power), while some community members (which raises their power to
influence things which is their matter) are against it.

No one is giving to PVC members any kind of power. Until VC starts to
exists, everything is still in Board's hands. One of the things for
which I am is that VC should be confirmed at Wikimedia wide
referendum. (If the community doesn't want to have an influence to its
own matters, then such body is not needed.)

(If I understood well your point that someone is giving some power to
PVC members.)

More information about the foundation-l mailing list