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

[Dan Rosenthal]

And the solution for a lack of transparency is a new organization with  
undefined powers, whose members are selected on a "short list" by a  
foundation insider, instead of a more open method of people being able  
to submit their names for consideration openly and transparently?

-Dan
On Mar 15, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l