No subject

is not going to work. We currently have MANY
languages<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix>that have a
WMF project. Some of the Wikipedias have almost
nothing to show for their
existence<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias>,
this is true to the extend that there are hundreds of Wikipedians that do
more edits in a month. Giving these languages a representation is
problematic. When you give the English Wikipedia some representation, let us
be generous, 10 people, the size is already such that it will be hard to get
some consensus out of them. Then there is Wiktionary, Wikiversity,
Wikibooks, Wikiquote all relatively substantial in English..

The steward body has a particular function. They do not represent anything
except their past good behaviour. Consequently it is really nice that a
country like Serbia has two man that we recognise as good. This does not
mean that there are no good men in India it just means that nobody from
India has so far asked to become a steward.

The board does not determine the weather, it does not determine finances. It
oversees what the ED, the office does. It ponders strategy but it does not
exectute this strategy. It was really unfortunate and painful that there was
a hiatus in the organisational functioning of the organisation. Because it
meant that so much more valuable time was wasted

Much of what needs doing is done by people, much of what is done is done by
small groups of people. When you look at governance, you have a choise of
either having everything done by the "government" or you have devolved much
of the authority to the people, the projects that do the work. There is a
need for a realignment of the governance of the WMF. Having a more
professional oversight of the organisation is a good thing. Having checks
and balances with the community (all inclusive languages and projects), the
board and the organisation is a good thing. The number of people that are
expected to get involved are however not realistic. It will not get anything
done if only because the sheer size is going to prevent any consensus.

I find it funny, but I find myself advocating small government. Typically an
American concept ...
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Discussion about languages went far a way from its initial meaning.
> So, before other things, I would try to give an explanation about this
> issue:
>
> - The best which language communities may get is one representative
> per language. Even we decide for that path, one representative per
> language will be something which would be achieved in five or more
> years. Until that, for example, Maltese language may be represented
> with one representative together with all small Mediterranean
> languages.
>
> - Particular projects may be represented only when they pass some
> criteria and projects which have below 10 "very active" users wouldn't
> be qualified for a representative at all.
>
> - Project types (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Commons...) should be
> represented, too. So, if someone is a good Wikinewsian they have a
> good chance to be a representative of the whole Wikinews. Again,
> project type size should reflect a number of representatives.
>
> - Meta is one of the particular projects (or project types) and people
> already involved in meta jobs should be represented, too.
>
> - We may even give to the Board right to have some number of appointed
> delegates (Board members are chosen according to the proportional
> system, so they have some rights in the community).
>
> But, the exact proportion and the exact path should be carefully found.
>
> If we don't use some similar way for electing representatives, we
> would get one of the next things:
>
> - Steward-like structure. There are two stewards from Serbia (7-10
> millions of inhabitants/speakers, one language project), but no one
> from India (1 billion, a number of language projects), no one from
> Muslim world (1 billion, a number of language projects).
>
> - Board as ultra-mega-super-body which decides not only about
> finances, but about weather, gravity etc.
>
> On 3/14/08, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Let's imagine some one "discriminated" from a small country, small
> language,
> >  small Wikipedia, a Maltese for example. He is one of only 5 people
> active in
> >  that Wikipedia. But he speaks Maltese, English and Spanish, and is
> active in
> >  Wikimedia Commons and contributes to Meta. If we would have a "tribal
> >  system" (voting via ethnic divides / languages), he would hardly have a
> >  chance to get into the Council. But in an open system, I would
> certainly
> >  give him my vote.
> >
> >  I have dealt with those questions in my Wikimedia Federation plan
> >  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Federation
> >  giving everyone the possibility to become an "individual member", if he
> has
> >  made enough edits. The experience from the open voting for the board
> showed
> >  us that it works to provide the body with people from different
> countries.
> >  In my opinion a Council should not be discussed seperately from the
> board
> >  and the community and the chapters. The final goal should be to have a
> >  functionable system for the whole of the Wikimedia world.
> >
> >  Maybe the board - by now the most democratic organ we have -
> >  1. creates a commission (no more than ten persons, at least with one
> legal
> >  expert) to discuss the main questions of the future system
> >  2. accepts or modifies the commission's final report
> >  3. creates a new commission (20 people) to write the new bylaws
> >  4. submits the new bylaws to a referendum of the whole community.
> >
> >  Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  --
> >
> > Ziko van Dijk
> >  Roomberg 30
> >  NL-7064 BN Silvolde
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >  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
>