[Foundation-l] Board restructuring and community

[effe iets anders]

2008/4/28 Michael Snow <wikipedia op verizon.net>:
> effe iets anders wrote:
>
> > Yesterday the Board announced a major change in the bylaws and power
> > structure. Although I see some positive aspects in the change from my
> > personal point of view (I have still not seen the official changes -
> > as you might know by now, I am for balance - so until then I can't be
> > definitive about that), let me summarize what is happening here:
> > Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> > been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> > chapter seats (it has always been announced that Domas' and Michaels
> > chair were intended to become community seats too) and two expert
> > seats were added, bringing down the community share in the board from
> > 71% to 50% or 30% (depending whether you count chapter seats as
> > community seats) of course assuming that the expert seats will be
> > filled too.
> >
> >
>  I take to heart your comments about the lack of soliciting feedback. Some
> elements of the idea I had previously discussed with people (community,
> chapters, staff), including in my election campaign last year, and generally
> the responses I received were positive. I don't recall it being a topic on
> this list, though. The responses here to the Volunteer Council proposal
> illustrate some of the challenges of getting useful feedback that way. I
> followed that closely and had difficulty coming away with a useful take-home
> message, amid the various criticisms and diffusion of counter-proposals or
> suggested modifications.
>
>
> > I think this restructuring of the Board only shows once more why we
> > need a Wikicouncil. The Board itself is apperently not able to ask
> > input herself on big decisions, and this sets a very bad precedent to
> > the future. Apperently the Board is in need of some kind of council
> > that is, in contrary to the few community members left in the board,
> > able to bring through the questions to the communities. Maybe the VC
> > would not function perfectly, but from what I am seeing now, it would
> > at least do a much better job, because of course this is a very sad
> > day for community involvement in the Wikimedia Movement.
> >
> > So please, Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and maybe Jimmy
> > too), let's just be fair and state your opinion. What is *your*
> > thought about community involvement. Should community only be allowed
> > to say something every two years? Should community only be allowed to
> > say something afterwards (the perfect receipe for ranting, btw)? Do
> > you think community members could be smart people who have a smart
> > opinion about the topics you discuss? Do you think they might come up
> > with arguments you did not think of yet?
> >
> > If you think so, you should start working, in one way or another, on
> > some kind of platform that is able to improve your attempts to contact
> > the community on major decisions. And no, I have no ready-boiled plan
> > for it, but I do know that there is a catalyst out there, that could
> > come up with a nice result. That catalyst consists of a group of
> > dedicated people, with a wide range of views, that could maybe come up
> > with something that is actually good.
> >
> >
>  Lodewijk, I'm very glad to see that you've changed your labels to recognize
> that the catalyst should be the people working on the proposal, instead of
> waiting for the board to be the catalyst as you were putting it previously.
> I think it likely that if the board creates a council, that will end up
> defining its relationship to the community and the world at large, and it
> will be perceived as a creature (literally, "thing created") of the board.
> If so, it would lose nearly all the value hoped for in its development. On
> the other hand, if the community creates a council, then I would certainly
> want to be aware of its perspective on foundation issues, and I expect other
> board members would as well.
>
>  --Michael Snow
>
>
Hi Michael,

thanks for your email. I don't want to be rude, but could you please
also try to more explicitely answer my questions? Thanks :)

Lodewijk