[Foundation-l] Board response on Volunteer Council

[Ray Saintonge]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> 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.
>>     
> 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.
>   
Like Lodewijk, I too am sad and disappointed.  Hope will not be enough 
to get this happening.  I think this was a significant failure on the 
part of the Board.
> 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).
>   
I actually don't see that as a big responsibility.  Once the task of 
appointing stewards is defined, it becomes a mechanical exercise.
> 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.
>   
All these are possibilities, and the 12 people proposed for the 
provisional Council have widely divergent opinions on these matters, but 
you have  yourself expressed in regards to the Board what a difference 
it makes to meet in person.  I can't see where that would be any 
different for a Council. One live meeting would certainly have brought 
more light onto the kind of concerns that you raise.  Working with the 
Board would also have done much to allay these speculative fears. 
> 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.
>   
Neither will ignoring the problem.
> All this suggests that the multiplication of several committees 
> empowered to handle certain tasks is probably preferable to a large 
> wikicouncil.
>   
The size of the council was not yet determined,  It is also predictable 
the Council would need to devolve into a series of committees, or to 
integrate its activities with those of existing committees.
> 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...)
>   

    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".
      

Perhaps it could do some of this, but I see this group a somewhat less 
important than some of the other things that it could be doing.  More 
significantly when it judges on specific appointments it compromises its 
objectivity.  The complaints will be there no matter what you or any 
committee does, we have a lot of people willing to do anything to 
protect their personal views.  I don't think it should be up to the 
chair or the strength of the chair's will.  There has recently been a 
thread on the wiki-en list about the governance problems in that 
project, but to me project autonomy means that they have to solve their 
own problems, and the duties of a Council would have more to do with 
guidance than imposing solutions.

    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...)
      

>         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.

    I strongly agree with this one, and I think that the Volunteer
    Council proposal did show the needed creativity. We have developed a
    strong tradition of rejecting creativity. To bring about any real
    improvements takes more than dreaming the ideas. It means dealing
    with a number of people who are quite happy with the status quo, and
    will do what it takes to protect it

    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)

    3. This is probably the one concerning *you* the most. I am not sure how 
    valid this concern is. 

      

Dealing with by-laws may be important, but I don't see it as the most concerning issue.  Opening new projects could be a significant one, but that would likely involve factors of concern to both Board and Council.

    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.

      

Not at all.  Concentrating these issues in Board and ED will only 
increase suspicion.

    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.

      

Sure, but how will a closed system ever accomplish this?

    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.

      

Yes, and it is precisely in these areas that a Council could be useful.  
The bickering and flamewarring reflects a lack of effective leadership. 
Distrust is a product of the fear that one has to constantly has to 
watch one's back because of some very persistent POV pushers.  Council 
won't be of much use over translation.  Developing criteria for when 
translations are needed does not produce translators.

    There are ways we can improve these three points, but again, wikicouncil 
    will perhaps not help. Let's try to find other solutions.
      

What solutions are you suggesting? Wikicouncil was not a perfect 
solution, but it was an attempt to do something, and rather than 
emphasize the positive features, and finding common ground on that, I 
see the accent placed on whatever could be negative about it.

    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).

      

Nobody is expecting the Wikicouncil to be all things to all people, and 
I am certainly sensitive to the threat that such a Council would 
represent to the Board's prerogatives.  The context does not make clear 
just what kind of leaks you are talking about.

    Sorry, it is a bit long. I hope it is clear.

    Ant

      

I'm not bothered by the length.  Clarity depends on one's views on the 
subject.

>> 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.
>>>       
How is this different from what we were trying to do? 
>>>  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
>>>       

There was nothing in the proposal that could not benefit from 
negotiation.  Getting something happening is more important than getting 
prematurely hung up on details.  The parts that provoke the greatest 
uncertainty are not equivalent to immediate demands.  Some of us are 
concerned about the lapse into anarchy, and it will take leadership to 
confront this, not political equivocation.

Ec