[Foundation-l] Board response on Volunteer Council

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Yes, but to me it is clear that the space where the board thinks a council
should be active is in self organising the projects and its communities. The
original proposal is very much one where the council would take power from
the organisation and the board of trustees. If anything they poured cold
water on this idea. When the members of the provisional council work out a
proposal for a council that will make a difference in the governance, the
organisation of the projects, I am sure you will find the practical support
of the board and the organisation.

To use your metaphor, the position of the board inhibits a reaction in the
direction of influence over the organisation or the board of trustees, it
gives plenty of scope to react at safe temperatures to build a council for
project self-governance. The big question is, do you want to and how do you
want to make a practical difference?
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:34 AM, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I said that the Board missed a major opportunity to catalyze this.
> When the energy is favourable, the reaction can go, but it requires a
> much higher activation energy without a catalyst. With the risk of the
> product getting burned because of the high temperatures.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2008/4/26 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > Hoi.
> >  The way I read the announcement of the board and the commentary by
> Michael
> >  Snow gives me a feeling of hope. It gives me hope because there is
> plenty
> >  room for a self governing body that will be there for the projects. I
> argued
> >  in the past to have a "Project Council" and the way I read this it is
> >  exactly where the board gives us room to organise a functional council.
> >
> >  I agree with effeietsanders that there is a need to organise a council.
> I do
> >  prefer a council that is particularly involved in addressing issues
> that are
> >  the result of the over 700 projects we have. The influence a council
> will
> >  have is something that will increasingly increase as it makes a
> difference
> >  on the ground. So I appreciate effeietsanders's disappointment but I
> urge
> >  him and the other members of the provisional council to work in the
> space
> >  that is clearly available. It is not without precedent; Betawiki is
> another
> >  self organised, self governing project that works for the benefit of us
> all.
> >  In the end what makes a difference is that you make a difference.
> >
> >  In my opinion the glass is not half empty but half full... and filling
> :)
> >  Thanks,
> >         GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >  > Michael Snow wrote:
> >  > > At this stage, the board has decided not to take action on the
> proposal
> >  > > to develop a Volunteer Council. We thank everyone who put the time
> and
> >  > > effort into formulating and discussing this proposal. Although the
> board
> >  > > did not find a clear fit for this proposal in the formal structure
> of
> >  > > the Wikimedia Foundation, we didn't rule out the possibility that
> the
> >  > > Wikimedia project communities might organize this or another type
> of
> >  > > council for their own benefit.
> >  > >
> >  > Not speaking on behalf of the board generally, I'll share some of my
> >  > personal opinion here. I can see some potential benefit to a
> volunteer
> >  > council or similar body, but more clearly in a function of
> >  > self-government for the community, where this may be lacking. That is
> to
> >  > say, not so much to be involved in foundation-level operations, but
> to
> >  > allow the foundation to avoid interfering where it is not wanted and
> >  > does not want to be.
> >  >
> >  > For example, I don't think we as the board should really be approving
> >  > stewards, or new arbitration committees on projects. Those are
> affairs
> >  > for the community to handle on its own, other than that the
> foundation
> >  > may want to have those people be personally identifiable. I could
> >  > imagine that starting projects in new languages (as opposed to
> launching
> >  > entirely new projects) might fit under this heading as well. So I
> >  > encourage people to keep looking at the idea, and I would support
> >  > developments that allow the community to govern itself instead of
> >  > lapsing into anarchy.
> >  >
> >  > --Michael Snow
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > 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
>