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

[effe iets anders]

Dear Nathan,

I totally agree with some of the points you make, and also noted the
complicated proposals that came by. However, I think this disagreement
between all kinds of people exactly shows *why* there is a need for a
_preliminary_ volunteer council. A lot of people agree that such a body
should come, but nobody has a clear enough outline that has sufficient
support to make it. However, people have a vision on how ideally tasks and
influence should be divided, and it is good to have some theoretical
discussions on it, so I read these with interest.

I would like to point out that it is neither realistic to think that a full
plan should already be sorted out. This preliminary council is proposed
exactly to come to such a proposal. So no bullet points yet, I do expect
those in September though. Please note that one of the optional advices this
preliminary group could give is to dismiss the volunteer council, and forget
about the whole idea. Furthermore there are numerous advices they could come
with.

What now is most important, is to come with a sound proposal to form such a
preliminary group. If I listened correctly, at least the vast majority
agrees with the basic ideas of the proposed resolution. That pleases me, and
I hope that this will lead to a result.

What is now very important, is to get the right (motivated) people on that
list, to get together a group of motivated people, who are willing and able
to come with a sane proposal. It is not as much to get only people in there
we agree with, but to get a good representation. I expect this group to have
the discussion in the open, and to invite outsiders to share their thoughts.
That way there is maximum transparency, but still a group that can maintain
speed of the process, and push through when things come to a halt in the
discussion.

I would like to explicitly invite everybody again to send me names of
potential candidates. I will come up with a longlist first, and after some
considerations with a few others, come up with a shortlist. that shortlist
will be added to the resolution as a recommendation, so that the Board can
decide on the names effectively. I think that although this is not the most
transparent way, this is the most friendly way. Nobody is waiting for a
flame war on potential candidates. Having a bit of oversight can gurantuee a
good spread of candidates over all parts of Wikimedia. I will most likely
publish the shortlist before handing it to the Board, so that if there are
major concerns about certain candidates, these can be brought to the
attention of the Board. It is not an ideal procedure, I immediately admit
it, but I think it will bring the fastest results. (note that 4-7 april is
the next board meeting, this is already in roughly three weeks! I want to
have this proposal finished by then.)

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2008/3/14, Nathan <nawrich op gmail.com>:
>
> Some of the proposals in this 100-post thread seem hopelessly complicated.
> If you want something like this to succeed, make it simple. I don't think
> its realistic to view this proposed council as a Board parallel in
> authority, even if the types of authority are separated clearly. Members
> of
> the Board have specific legal responsibility for Foundation activities
> that
> require it to be the final level of authority. Some elements of authority
> can be restricted from the Board through by-laws, but I don't think its
> possible to designate a level of authority above the Board beyond the
> "membership" itself without conferring legal duties and liabilities.
>
> What about all this effort can't be accomplished through an expansion of
> the
> duties and participation in the Chapters Community? It seems like the only
> non-ChapCom related responsibilities are governance related, and
> governance
> is the specific province of the Board - if you want to committees to make
> recommendations, well we've got those and we also already have a structure
> for them. Why reinvent the wheel, particularly when it appears that it
> will
> have a thousand moving parts? Milos has so far in this thread called for
> the
> Volunteer Council,  a Supreme Court and judicial system, another body with
> content authority... Has no one on this list ever read the WP:CREEP page
> on
> en.wikipedia? Folks self-select themselves for committees based on
> interest
> and level of committment - how do you expect to increase representation
> and
> participation simply by creating a new bureaucratic edifice?
>
> There is great value in having non-Board groups confer and make specific
> recommendations, and value in encouraging participation and understanding
> between projects and languages, but I think the idea of a Council as has
> been articulated by some in this thread is fatally flawed - and perhaps
> this
> is why it hasn't moved forward in so long. If conceptual flaws and
> complexity have prevented agreement on the role and functions of this
> group
> before, why should we expect that such agreement will appear through the
> "provisional council" process?
>
>
> Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>