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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the council is only a talking shop, not willing to take
responsibilities I do not understand its purpose. When a collection of
wikimedians have the pleasure of being part of this group, there will be
more people who will be outside of this group. When it is clear, observable
and in its papers what it is that they do and what you can expect of them,
it makes sense to have a council. Without this it is a well intentioned
waste of time and effort. Without this it wull become a source of resentment
because it is will be perceived as just another clique.

When the only deliverable is talk, policies etc without the will to
implement them and see them implemented, this observable intent is lacking
from the start.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>