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

Fri Mar 14 13:25:15 UTC 2008

Hoi Gerard,

I think actually that Milos and you are advocating the two extremes.

I do not think we can form a board having a representative of every
(reasonably defined) big project.

I also do not think we should leave these projects without representation.

Let us take again the hypotetical Maltese wikipedian (for definiteness, a
male Wikipedian) who happens to mainly edit a project with 10 other active
editors (I am not exactly sure what the actual  standing of the Maltese
Wikipedia is, let us discuss this as a hypothetical example). If he is not
an admin on a larger Wikipedia (say English) and not a steward, he doe not
get a public exposure outside his own small project. This typically means
he stands no chance to be elected by a general vote, whatever brilliant he
is. We can not help this. What we can do is to reserve say one Council
seat all (reasonably defined) small projects and design the procedure how
these projects will elect their representative. The idea of such as seat
would be to ensure that (similar) problems of all small Wikipedias are
being heard. If we reserve zero seats, they are just not represented. If
wee select a seat for each project, there is no way the Council will be
operational.

Cheers,
Yaroslav

> Hoi,
>>From an idealistic point of view, great. From a practical point of view
>> it
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>