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

[Ray Saintonge]

Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I mean any group where the members are not selected transparently.
>   
Okay, so we're really talking about transparency instead of secrecy.  So 
Lodewijk is preparing a list of possible PVC members.  He may very well 
have certain individuals in mind, but it would be wrong for him to make 
his dream list public before he has had a chance to ask those 
individuals whether they want to serve.  If they refuse their names need 
not be made public; that's a personal privacy matter.  Doling out that 
list one name at a time doesn't seem right either, so it's reasonable to 
build up a reasonably functional list before making it public.  Perhaps, 
in the course of preparing that list he will realize that an important 
point of view is unrepresented despite opportunities for people to 
volunteer either publicly or privately.  Individuals then need to be 
actively sought to represent those views, but again, that is a 
substantially private undertaking.  Once he has made a list of 
candidates public for approval by the Board there should still be 
opportunities for people to voice an opinion on the candidates or to 
propose new ones.

I don't think that a direct electoral process would work anyway, 
especially not when we have not yet found agreement on who would 
represent what, something which itself can't be done until the 
Provisional Council has had the opportunity to narrow the options.  That 
would be an important topic that needs to be addressed in its report.

All that being said, how does it square with your vision of transparency?

Ec
> From: 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.