[Foundation-l] Community Assembly

[Geoffrey Plourde]

The Assembly also would speak in its own name, which is another reason why I chose this title. 


----- Original Message ----
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:43:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly

Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>>> What job will it perform? What authority and power does it have?
>>> The Community Assembly will the unified voice of the Wikimedia Community. It would set community policy on a global scale and administer community processes. The exact powers given to it shall be determined by the community in its Charter.
>>>      
>> Any such group becomes suspect when it begins by phrasing its mission in
>> terms of authority and power.  It's all very romantic to speak of a
>> unified voice, but the unification has to happen first.  Who drafts the
>> community charter that is the basis for these powers?
>>    
> To me, the "unified voice" is not romantic, but frightening.
> I sincerely dislike the idea that some body might exist that
> will pass resolutions "in the name of the community": If
> there is a consensus in the community, there is no need to
> pass a resolution. If there is no consensus, there should
> not be a resolution at all.
>  
"Unified voice" can be either, depending on the way it's implemented.  
The kind of unified voice that prevails around some of the current en:wp 
processes is indeed frightening.  It is romantic when a person believes 
that his solution alone will be the magic bullet that solves all these 
problems.  The fallacious excluded middle in your syllogism relates to 
not knowing whether there is a consensus.  It is impossible to know 
about the consensus before you know the resolution.

I can't speak for Geoffrey's assembly, but there has been no statement 
from the Council that it will pass resolutions "in the name of the 
community".  It could pass resolutions in its own name, but unless it 
can garner wider community support those resolutions will go no further.
> To repeat my two questions I have posted some time ago
> with no answer yet:
>
> 1. How will any council, assembly or whatever further the
>    foundation's mission?
>  
This trick question depends on how you interpret the foundation's 
mission.  As long as the foundation's mission is based on dominant 
paternalism it can't further such a mission. 
> 2. What are the non-meta issues that the board has handled
>    not as well as the council-, assembly- or whatever-to-be?
>  
What do YOU mean by "non-meta issues"?  Clearly, a statement about what 
the Board has handled "not as well", is completely speculative in the 
absence of a council or other body.  It is nevertheless clear the the 
Trustees are limited in number, and are thus limited in the tasks they 
can undertake.  The risk is also that a deep involvement in community 
editing processes could compromise the protections and defences that it 
can claim as an ISP.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ