[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

Fri Apr 4 11:35:29 UTC 2008

Hoi,
The short answer is you are. The longer answer is that things are about
priorities. For me language and localisation is a priority. For you the
introduction of scientists is a priority. For others it is responding to
mail. Both you and me do what we can and we might be able to do more
effectively. The operative word is DO. We DO what we can.

When you think SUL has been implemented, you are largely right and largely
wrong because it has only been implemented for admins. For me it is a
godsend. I have been active on several new projects since and it has saved
me a lot of time. For others it has not been implemented and one of the
reasons is that there is no group of people willing or able to get involved
into the enormous amount of admin that will be the result. If anything there
is a need for people to DO things. When a council will take responisibility
and coordinate the needs for such activities, it will be a good thing. When
the council tells others what to do it will be an unmitigated disaster.

When you observe that nobody is responsible, you are right up to a point.
The board is primarily involved in overseeing the WMF ORGANISATION. It has
always done a minimal job interfering in the projects. If a council is to do
what needs doing for the projects, absolutely, great idea, when will you
start. When the council coordinates the needs of the projects with the
organisation, with the board it will be good. The fun thing is, it does not
need any of the formal powers and capacitites of the board to do that. It
only needs to DO this thing in a credible way.

We do not need one massive policy wonk thingie. We need people collaborating
on issues, taking care of what is seen as relevant / an issue. When they do
a good job we should celebrate their work. When we are not sure we can ask
them what they are doing.  We do need something like a council. We do need
to deal with SUL with NPOV in all Wikipedias. We need to deal with legal
issues in all projects. The only way in which it can be done is by having a
system whereby projects are autonomous within certain bounds and where we
have a system of checks and balances that ensures that they are as free as
they can possibly be within the confines of their project while maintaining
the essence and the legalities that have to be maintained on an
organisational level.

To answer your last question. YES all WMF projects have something more in
common. They are all to make information / knowledge available to all the
people of the world.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are a lot of important issues which may be decided only by a
> legitimate entity of the global community. During the last years the
> Board was not willing to make any community-related issue until things
> became too critical. We needed months (or more than a year?) to close
> Siberian Wikipedia, (at least) a month or two was needed to regulate
> things on Russian Wikibooks, years were passed and I don't see
> resolution of the problems around Moldovan Wikipedia... How much time
> was passed from technical availability of SUL until the start of its
> implementation? Who is responsible for the fact that we don't have a
> possibility to resolve anything outside of a particular community? Who
> is responsible for the fact that I am not able to compile one wikibook
> on Serbian Wikibooks from translations from German and English
> Wikibooks? Who is responsible for NPOV development? Who is responsible
> for taking care about encyclopedic and NPOV principles on Wikipedias?
>
> The answer is simple: no one is responsible. There is no any person or
> body which took responsibility over such issues. Board is taking care
> only if something threats to go out of control at the wider scale. All
> other things are up to the strength of the local communities.
>
> But, out of those well known problems, there are *a lot* of very small
> and simple problems which roots are in a lack of communication between
> the communities. A couple of days ago I sent to two lists (+ one more
> resent by David Gerard) about cooperation between professors, experts
> and students around Wikimedia. And I realized that I found one more
> already partially realized idea which would require a lot of work and
> coordination to become functional. And, again, I don't see the right
> place to talk about the organization of such thing. ... How many times
> Wikimedians would make a similar template or the same not so easy to
> make bot for some purpose? ... Who is responsible to ask people from
> one small project what do they need? ...
>
> If all of those issues are not enough big for making a communication
> and decision-making channel for all projects, I am really not sure do
> Wikimedian projects have anything else common except hosting their
> content at WMF servers.
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >  >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  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
>