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

[Ray Saintonge]

Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I was being serious. I mean no disrespect to the owner, but as David says below, I see no valid reason for this Council to exist. My issues are;
>  
> 1) The size of the body is too small to adequately represent the Community. 
> 2) The Board is already accountable to the community, through the annual election. 
> 3) The initial membership is not being selected transparently.
>  
> Here is how it can be reformed;
>  
> 1) Increase the size to 200-400 members.
> 2) Give each project a specific number of members, based on size.
> 3) Rename it the Community Assembly
> 4) Give the initial slots to anyone who is interested. 
> 5) Clearly state a purpose. 
>  
> Thoughts?
The size of the VC remains to be determined.  Those on the PVC should 
take that into account when making their recommendation.  The reasons 
fro a smaller or larger VC will have been made clear, as will have any 
proposals for distribution of such members by project.  The PVC 
membership will be relatively small but it will have the right to add 
further members, but one needs to remember as well that the role of the 
PVC is a very limited one.  It can only report and recommend.

Without being critical of anyone on the Board it's safe to say that what 
passes for Board accountability is laughably limited.  The Board is 
under no legal obligation to appoint anyone that is elected by the 
community.  The person who topped the ballot was only supported on 40% 
of the ballots, and he has since resigned from the Board.  My purpose in 
raising that is not to directly criticize those events, but to 
illustrate that it would probably be easier for the VC to attain a 
higher standard of accountability.

How much transparency do you want for selecting a group whose only role 
will be to make recommendations?  Lodewijk has already stated that he 
will make a slate public before it goes to the Board, so that the 
community will have the opportunity to voice its opinions about any 
person on that list that it considers unsuited.

What the group is named is of no consequence at all.  Earlier 
suggestions were for a WikiCouncil, but I can appreciate that less 
Pythonesque minds than mine might balk at a legislative group called the WC.

Giving the initial slots to anyone interested is fine.  At 
[[Meta:Talk:Wikicouncil]] the first section reads "2008 interested 
team". From the beginning of the year until a resolution was made public 
only 11 people put their name on that list.  Not all people named on the 
list made any comments there, and not all who made comments put their 
name on the list.  That's fine.  Since this thread started two others 
have added their names, both of whom have made positive contributions to 
this thread.  Peter, Paul and Mary cannot choose a team made up only of 
right-fielders.  The PVC will have a limited lifetime, and we want it to 
work.  Choosing a member for the sole reason that he has put his hand up 
in class is just not enough.  We want some evidence of being able to 
participate in a collaborative synthesis. If you want 200+ people to be 
involved then show me 200+ people with enough committment.  If you just 
want people to have an opportunity to express themselves, that 
opportunity will be given.

One of the purposes is to develop the purposes into something coherent.  
If you have been reading the thread you will see that people's ideas for 
the purposes are all over the map.  Do you honestly believe that the ad 
hoc group that is promoting this initiative should be defending its 
vision to the exclusion of all others?  If it wants to do that it 
doesn't need this council; it doesn't need a forum which would expose 
that vision to alternate POVs.and which would give the broad membership 
any opportunity to participate.

Ec