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

[Ray Saintonge]

Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Exactly. I for one will vigorously oppose any provisional group that operates in secrecy.
>   
Then it comes down to what you mean by secrecy.

Having every last bit of conversation out in the public doesn't work 
either.  It's great to have this discussed on an open list, but that's 
not an effective environment for synthesizing a solution, because the 
level of noise and repetition gets too high.  It often takes alternating 
periods of public consultation, and quiet building.  Analogous to the 
scientific method, we develop hypotheses in small discussions, and test 
those hypotheses by asking for public input. The process is repeated as 
often as necessary. When we get close to agreement the public criticism 
diminishes. 

Take the relatively simple question of the size of the Volunteer 
council.  The suggested numbers have ranged from 20 to 500.  We can 
safely say that the optimal number is somewhere between those two.  When 
it is discussed by the Provisional Council its members come to an agree 
settlement among themselves, and present reasons why they arrived at 
that number.  That is then ready to go back to the public for further 
comment.

Similar processes will happen for other issues that cannot be so easily 
defined.

Ec
> From: 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.
>>>>         
>
>