[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

[dex2000]

I'm sorry, but Ec's remarks are beside my point in several ways.

Discussions on foundation-l are biased by being monopolized by very few
people and both this list and meta are biased by favouring people who read
and express themselves rather well in English. In addition, I don't see a
possible VC as a foundation entity but as a community entity. That's why I
propose to have its scope and ends dicussed by all the communities.  This is
just the opposite of an English-wp bias and when I point to the village
pumps, I mean *all* of them, of course. Problems with translations should
not prevent that, I hope. Use them to establish workgroups that can report
their wishes and attitudes etc. regarding a VC and its area of operation.

A VC should not be established because it has been discussed for a long time
and because we are getting tired of discussing it. A real positive approach
is to ask the communities to provide their input about such an innovation.
Even the limited discussion here has revealed that people think that all
kinds of small problems could be solved by a VC, which I sincerely doubt
will be case. On the other hand, it might turn out that some new areas for
initiative could be furthered by such a body, operating in other areas than
the foundation itself.

Regards,
Sir48 (da:wiki)

dex2000 wrote:
>> As a contributor for several years, I have followed discussions on
>>oundation-l with increasing scepticism. Mostly it seems to be a small
group
>>discussing matters between themselves and not seeking any involvement from
>>the communities.
>>
>>It is very difficult for me to see, why the board should approve to
>>establish a PVC as suggested. Setting up a VC without knowing which
problems
>>it should address, and within which framework, and without involving the
>>communities at all seems quite out of the line. Why has the wish for such
a
>>group not been presented to the communities on their village pumps, for
>>instance?
>>
>>Instead, I would suggest to the board to encourage a much broader
>>investigation, forming different groups from different communities to
>>investigate and report on the tasks, which they feel a VC could take over.
>>Only after such broad activities can any conclusion be drawn about the
need
>>for a VC and its "incorporation" in the formal structure of the
foundation.
>>Such a major step should not be directed by a small group of
>>foundation-l-contributors that has already concluded the need for such a
new
>>body.
>>
>>What needs fixing should be determined after agreement on what the
>>communities consider broken.

>Why should the question be based on "fixing" smething that is "broken"?
>I want to take a far more constructive approach by stressing what is
>right about Wikimedia and its projects.

>The idea of a Wikicouncil under various names is nothing new.  The
>current round of discussions has been on Meta since the beginning of the
>year, and it is on the Foundation list which is essentially for those
>who are interested in Wikimedia as a whole.  If we were to go onto the
>Village Pums, which ones?  Are you offering to arrange translation for
>all these languages?  If you just mean the English Wikipedia, how do you
>plan to counter the bias that it would be an English project?  Some
>people have already expressed that concern.

>Ec
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 06-04-2008
11:12