[Foundation-l] Board response on Volunteer Council

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

> effe iets anders wrote:
>> I am seriously disappointed for the Board not to take this chance and
>> finally catalyze the community process here. It was a great
>> opportunity in my opinion, and I am sorry you are making things so
>> hard now. It does not happen that often that such a lot of people at
>> least agree on a concept, which makes it even more sad with such a lot
>> volunteer representatives on the board that you were unanle to fit
>> things in. I think I'll let things sink in first, and respond later on
>> more in-depth.
>>
>> -- Lodewijk
>
> I understand and regret your disappointment Lodewijk. As an ardent
> believer of the wikicouncil concept, I hope that such a group is created
> in the future.
>
> I largely share Michael opinion below. Many roles could be held by such
> a council, which are now either unsufficiently handled (eg, coordination
> between projects) or inappropriately under the responsibility of the
> board (eg, approving stewards).
>
> However, it is also true that the many different roles envisionned by
> the council might create some confusions (eg, approving bylaws and being
> a meta arbitration committee calls for very different skills). Putting
> too many roles in the hands of a unique group would also probably create
> some power struggles, some members willing to be part of it more for the
> fame and recognition than for the doing the job proper.
>
> Last, populating this group (election of its members) might reveal
> really community-destructive in that we will never all agree on how to
> represent a community.
>
> All this suggests that the multiplication of several committees
> empowered to handle certain tasks is probably preferable to a large
> wikicouncil.
>
> I essentially can summarize the roles of the wikicouncil has being the
> three following ones
>
> 1) delegation of some of the current responsibilities of the board, and
> better coordination of some of the responsibilities given to the
> communities
> (in this group, I could imagine: approval of arbcom, meta arbcom,
> approval/oversight of stewards, approval/oversight of checkuser,
> approval/oversight of oversight etc...)
>
> 2) Coordination of activities between projects and languages
> (eg, coordination on the robot.txt page; list of 1000 pages
> all-wikipedia-should-have; wish list of technical features etc...)
>
> 3) Approval/Oversight of certain decisions taken by the Wikimedia
> Foundation
> (eg, changes of bylaws; business development strategy (advertisement);
> Wikimania location; opening of new projects)
>
>
> 1. is more or less working, but would benefit from improvement.
> I would be willing to help straighten it... except that each time I
> tried, I ran into mumbles in particular from the english community
> (micro-management yada yada) or was told I was walking on Jimbo's toes
> (eg, arbcom issues).
> I have no idea how things could be fixed in some cases, perhaps a future
> chair with more will than I could help ;-)
> But overall, I am not sure how much it is really broken and how much
> fixing it really needs. Perhaps is it not really broken ? Perhaps a few
> fix here and there might be enough ? I am in particular thinking of
> "approval of steward" and "creation of the meta-arbcom".
>
>
>
> 2. Is very little handled, so there is a lot of room for improvement and
> creativity here. Support from the board would however be a good idea.
> My own view is that this is the most problematic area, and my feeling is
> that the gap between projects and languages is currently rather growing
> than reducing. If there is one area of real concern to me, this is the
> one. I do not feel there is enough bridging.
>
>
>
> 3. This is probably the one concerning *you* the most. I am not sure how
> valid this concern is. A solid and daring board should be sufficient to
> help alleviate major concerns. A good ED and staff team should be
> sufficient to help alleviate major concerns.
> I'd say the most urgent point to fix right now is not "oversight", it is
> "communication".
> Our communication has been dropping badly for the last months. By
> communication, I do not mean necessarily "board to community" or "ED to
> community". I mean our "interactions" and discussions.
> There are various reasons for this. Three are the most problematic ones
> and should be fixed :
> a) bickering and flamewarrying on this list. It created an unpleasant
> atmosphere and prevent good people from being willing to participate in
> a constructive fashion
> b) public view. Every time we sneeze, there is a journalist to report
> it, claiming we caught the flu and are dying. There are leaks to the
> press in private lists. It is disastrous because it created an
> atmosphere of distrust, and many issues are no more discussed by fear of
> being repeated
> c) languages. We are translating things less than in the past; We are
> less welcoming to non-english natives than in the past; We are
> developing ways of distribution of information only in english (blogs
> etc...). No one fault, but this is a trend I see.
>
> There are ways we can improve these three points, but again, wikicouncil
> will perhaps not help. Let's try to find other solutions.
>
> I do not think that creating a wikicouncil would help 3), because either
> the group is too small and there is no sufficient representativity (does
> not bring much more than having community members on the board), or the
> group is too big (and nothing sensitive will be discussed because of
> fears of leaks).
>
>
> Sorry, it is a bit long. I hope it is clear.
>
> Ant
>
>
>
>
>> 2008/4/26 Michael Snow <wikipedia at verizon.net>:
>>> 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
>