[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When the will of the people is delegated, does that mean that the people has
also delegated its responsibility of the consequences of this will? When the
council has working groups are they to talk themselves to death or will they
be responsible for what they do and be responsible for the realisation of
their pearls of wisdom?

The big problem is not in talking, or airing views. The big problem is in
not taking the consequences of those views.

Betawiki and the language committee work because of people DOING things. All
the talk about going to do things is just a waste of time when there are no
resulting observable practical results. I like the proposal from Lodewijk
because it moves us away from only talk. When I hear only jabber jabber
community, will, power, committees I wonder what the deliverables will be.
What the use will be. Why we should trust you.

There is no problem abdicating power when the result is that the work gets
done more efficiently, more effectively. In a well run organisation the boss
is constrained in what he can effectively do while he has the power to do
anything. To me there is no paradox in wanting to give power away, it makes
sense because people who have power like Anthere, Sue, Brion, Jimmy do not
scale.
Thanks,
     GerardM



On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

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