[Foundation-l] Provisional Volunteer Council: May we start?

[Ray Saintonge]

Milos Rancic wrote:
> I was thinking about having two lists: one read-only and one private.
> Read-only should be used for the most of discussions, while private
> should be used if someone asks for that (which should be notified
> somehow at the read-only list; maybe like "a contributor asked for
> private conversation" or "a council member asked for that" -- without
> mentioning names, of course). The problem with that concept is that
> PVC should have a time-limited mandate and that I am sure that two
> lists may mean significantly less efficiency.
>
> But, if we introduce a wiki, then we may solve it in the sense that a
> wiki would be read-only medium, while a list would be a private one.
>
> I think that both resources should be left to be used by VC.
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:27 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I've read the post in the threads on the (P)VC  but have not commented
>>  further since I'm undecided about the next steps until I hear more
>>  from the board and the staff.
>>
>>  From my experience on ArbCom, a wiki is a much better place to keep a
>>  record of the discussions by topic. They also can be watchlisted so
>>  updates to threads of discussion are more obvious and topics under
>>  discussions can be completed sooner.
>>
>>  I agree that transparency is important for most of the work, but not all.
>>
>>  Some people are timid about making comments in public forums. If users
>>  want to contact the group privately with idea or concerns, I would
>>  like for them to be heard.
>>     
I'm generally supportive of Milos's Plan B in the event that the Board 
fails to Act, but it's clearly better to have the Board on the same page 
as the VC,  If the Board proposes limitations on the VC, we would do 
best to try to accommodate that.  A little patience is to our advantage.

What Sydney says about people being timid plays a big part in my own 
concerns about completely open discussions.  It also has to do with the 
public giving brainstorm proposals more weight than anybody imagined.  
Balancing openness with practical operations will need to be one of the 
group's early challenges.

Ec
>>  On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > I'm neither interested in a private wiki nor a private mailing list
>>  >  for this. I would be fine with a communications medium that was
>>  >  read-only for non-members. We do want the community to know what we
>>  >  are discussing, even if we take some measures to keep the noise level
>>  >  down while we are discussing it.
>>  >
>>  >  Also, I agree with Chad that no wiki/list/whatever be set up until we
>>  >  have board approval on a resolution to create a PVC in the first
>>  >  place. Jumping the gun here is really not a good idea.
>>  >
>>  >  --Andrew Whitworth
>>  >
>>  >  On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >  > Until the Board decides either way on the (P)VC, there
>>  >  >  should be no private wikis or mailing lists. If those of
>>  >  >  you on Effe's shortlist want to congregate somewhere
>>  >  >  off WMF-endorsed lists and wikis privately, that's your
>>  >  >  own agenda, but to make a private list or wiki when
>>  >  >  there's no official endorsement from the Foundation
>>  >  >  is unacceptable. We already have a community paranoid
>>  >  >  of "cabals" and "secret lists" as it is, and making one
>>  >  >  on the official mailing lists without and Board approval
>>  >  >  wouldn't help that paranoia in the least.