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

[Milos Rancic]

There are a couple of notes related to secrecy or "secrecy" of the
Provisional Council:

- The first time that I see a higher level of community's involvement
in relation to this matter is now. Until Lodewijk didn't post "the
final proposal" for PC a very small group of people were involved in
discussion. A couple of months ago Florence announced here her
intention to finish Wiki Council idea...

- While we were talking there about a lot of Wiki/Volunteer Council,
we concluded that we are not able to make it there, that we need a
number of persons who will get a task to make a *proposal* and that
such body (i.e. Provisional Council) shouldn't be able to make any
kind of decision except to make a proposal for further functioning of
Wiki/Volunteer Council. So, speaking formally, Provisional Council is
*not* Volunteer Council, but a body which should propose
responsibilities and duties of Volunteer Council.

- Personally, I don't agree with keeping the names in secret. However,
I am sure that all people who gave a constructive input here or at
Wiki Council page will be included in that body. (While I don't know
for any name from the Lodewijk's list, I may suppose what names are
there.)

- As I said, the function of the Provisional Council is to arrange the
ideas and to make some final proposal to the Board. Unlike talks on
this list, PC will be formed to make some conclusions, not only to
discuss. This is the main reason why a specific group of people
dedicated to finish one task is better than a place for talking,
without a specific goal.

- The first thing which PC should do is to define conditions under
which it succeed or not. This is very important because in the case of
not finished job, it should say it openly and ask the Board and the
community to define some other way for doing that job.

- Also, I think that it is very important that PC discuss publicly
about all important issues. Maybe the best idea is to find initial
questions and then to ask them here, at foundation-l. And,
consequently, to inform the community about conclusions and to ask new
questions if they exist.

On 3/18/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> 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.
>  >>>>
>  >
>  >
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>