[Foundation-l] Volunteer Council - A shot for a resolution

[Thomas Dalton]

On 13/03/2008, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru> wrote:
> I posted it earlier today on the Meta talk page, and I am not sure whether
>  we are discussing here or there, but anyway. I agree with those who think
>  that more than a hundred is way too much. 500 representatives can may be
>  hold a meeting once per year (where not everybody even gets a chance to
>  speak - if it is a real time meeting), and may be they can vote for smth
>  if needed, but it is absolutely impossible that 500 people can discuss
>  smth and agree on smth. If we really want a body that can prepare some
>  decisions (not just vote them) and deal with some issues, several dozens
>  is an absolute maximum. I would even say less, 20-30, but it is hard for
>  me to understand how 20-30 people can even remotely represent the
>  community.

I agree completely. If we're going to have a body of 500 we would
need, at the very least, a smaller body to determine the agenda for
the general meetings. I agree that 20-30 isn't going to be very
representative, but it can be fairly close. About 50 people would be a
manageable number, and I reckon we can be pretty representative then.
Obviously, we can't have every project represented individually, but
the issues that affect a certain project probably also affect a few
other projects, so there is no need for individual representation.
With a group of that size, smaller projects would need to have a very
disproportionately high representation, but I don't think that's too
serious an issue, as long as it's made very clear in the standing
orders of the body to what level they can interfere in individual
projects (ie. not much) - a group of people from smaller projects
interfering in the running of enwiki would be very bad (and very
tempting for them to do).