[Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).

[Ray Saintonge]

effe iets anders wrote:
> although off topic here:
> because it gives a signal by the board that they are willing.
> because it gives a clear timeline
> because it gives a little pressure
> because this report would not be "just a report"
>
> BR, Lodewijk
>   
Exactly.  The idea of a Wikicouncil has been knocking about for a few 
years already, and nothing has happened.  Any group can get together to 
talk about anything, but that does not give any credibility to the 
report.  If the Board passes a resolution to the effect that this is a 
worthwhile initiative it has a tremendous effect on the credibility of 
the report. 

It is not just about what some group wants to hash out.  It is about 
what the community wants hashed out.  Making the proposal public when it 
was has drawn a lot of comments from the community, including many 
constructive ones.  Is it not more community minded to put out the 
proposal before debate, instead of after when it would be far more 
difficult to make changes?

The name really doesn't matter.  We could spend a lot of time on the 
semantic differences between "provisional council" and "steering 
committee" for a group that would most likely not exist by the end of 
the year.  What difference would that make to any substantive result?

Ec
> 2008/3/17, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>:
>   
>> Effe, if the purpose of this initial group is only to issue a report on
>> the need and viability and potential structure of a future group, why not
>> just have it be called a steering committee of some sort, organize the
>> people you think are helpful and interested, and issue a report with your
>> names on it after talking to other people and forming up some more fully
>> fleshed out ideas? Why go through the agita of a proposal and a debate and
>> all the rest, when what you really seem to want is to get a group of people
>> together to hash out what they want to propose - and then start the debate?
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>> On 3/17/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> as I said, there might be no need, even by your definition. It all
>>> depends
>>> on the report and whether accepted by the board. So please do not act
>>> hastely here and do not try to get everything done at once. Rome isn't
>>> biult
>>> on one day either.