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

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Tue Mar 18 15:37:13 UTC 2008


Hoi,
It is extremely transparant how the new board members were selected; it was
done by the existing board. That is all there is to know right?
Thanks,
    GerardM

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> I mean any group where the members are not selected transparently.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 1:56:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restricting Appointed members (Proposal).
>
> 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
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


More information about the foundation-l mailing list