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

[Ray Saintonge]

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/14/2008 9:20:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
> dgerard at gmail.com writes:
>
> I appear  to have missed an important piece of information somewhere in
> this  thread:
>
> What *precisely* is the function of this new body supposed to  be? In
> one sentence.
>
> - d.
>
> Thank you for asking.
>  
> Danny
That someone should ask such a question is as much a justification for 
this proposal as anything else. This thread did start with a posting by 
Lodewijk, in which a rationale was included.  Is there a mailing list 
equivalent to RTFM?  It would send someone back to the first posting in 
the thread.

The path from idea to implemention in the Wikimedia projects is a rocky 
one.  It works well while a project is still relatively small but it 
doesn't scale very well.  At some point a few individuals who are 
absolutely convinced that they have the solution to all of a project's 
ills set about to implement that solution, refusing to acknowledge that 
any criticisms are valid. When meeker more collaborative individuals who 
lack the stamina for the necessary trench warfare go away, the 
proponents claim victory because as we all know, "Silence is consent."  
In due course we end up with such enlightened idiocies as "Notability", 
and "AfD".

Contrarily, when someone with a more collaborative outlook comes up with 
a well though-out and imaginative block of proposals it is almost a 
guarantee that it will be completely ignored.

I view the present initiative as an attempt to deal with some of these 
issues.  I view it as a medium for broad policy developments, but not 
for enforcing them, or imposing them on any single project.  It should 
be able to develop ideas in a calm environment with a relatively low 
noise factor, and present them to the general membership for 
confirmation or rejection.  Most of all it needs to be a medium for 
building trust, something which I often find to be sadly lacking.

Too many of the arguments that have been expressed so far seem to be 
rooted in mistrust, and a fear that one's views and opinions will never 
be considered because all those "in the cabal" have ambitions of power, 
and have an agenda that they want to impose on everyone else.  If the 
Provisional Council comes up with something like that it will certainly 
fail, and the report that is intended it should submit in September will 
certainly be rejected.

Assuming that the present proposal is accepted by the Board, it's only a 
Provisional body, and it will need to take any comments made in this 
thread in serious consideration if it wants to have any future.

Ec