[Foundation-l] Policy modification (was possible reconsideration)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is however the people in the committee who are doing the work. What value
should be given to the opinion of dozens of people who are of a particular
opinion, pushing their POV? The value of the language committee is in the
fact that we no longer discuss if it is a good thing to have additional
languages. It is in the fact that new languages can be understood by people
who are not bilingual. It is in the fact that the new projects have been
doing so much better then the projects that were started on a hope and a
prayer. This difference is observable.

When you are of the opinion that the committee should reconsider, I would
say that you might value the effort that goes into promoting language
diversity. It is too easy to stand on the sidelines and find that things are
not exactly in the way you want them. As you know, I am not happy with all
the policies either but they are a HUGE improvement over what we had before.
I am quite happy with the existing policies because the difference they make
are truly beneficial. There will be a moment where we have an inflection
point, this moment is not there yet.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of
> the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
>
> A single person or even a handful of people disagreeing is one thing;
> dozens of people are quite different.
>
> Mark
>
> 2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> > Hoi,
> > Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> you
> > are now in the race to win votes.  That makes you a politician and you
> have
> > to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect
> you
> > enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
> >
> > When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility
> to
> > do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The
> > language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to
> > create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing
> > languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively
> the
> > language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable
> chance
> > for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated.
> > This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their
> point
> > of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a
> > consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV
> taken
> > in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice
> and
> > it is for them to live with the consequences.
> >
> > It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist
> on
> > the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee.
> When
> > the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all
> time
> > because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then
> the
> > amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being
> > part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
> >
> > Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim
> to
> > do.
> >
> > NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been
> > approved by the board have been created.
> >
> > Thanks Tim !!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
> >> > Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If a proposed amendment fails to meet
> >> >> community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it.  It
> is
> >> >> not the mandate of  a subcommittee to override that.  I am well aware
> of
> >> >> the problem of inadequate community participation, but community
> silence
> >> >> does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of
> >> >> community participation no policy or policy amendment should be
> >> >> considered as approved.
> >> >>
> >> > That is incorrect. The language subcommittee was specifically tasked
> >> > with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation
> >> > policy. The committee furthermore did not override the community. Some
> >> > community members questioned the need for that clause (long after it
> >> > was introduced), and failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever on
> >> > whether to keep, change, or remove it. As such, no change was made.
> >> > Whether committees *should* make decisions or depend on the wider
> >> > community to do so is a very different discussion than whether they
> >> > *can*.
> >> >
> >> I can't speak in terms of the factual specifics for the language policy
> >> because I did not follow it as it was developing.  I don't see it as
> >> appropriate that a committee would make policies simply because it can.
> >> That's an attitude that distances the committee from the community.
> >> "Override" is probably a stronger word than what I would use in the
> >> circumstances, when the result was based on an absence of consensus.
> >> What really needs to be clarified with respect to any committee is a
> >> demarcation of the committee's job in relation to the community's rights
> >> to decide.
> >> > As an aside, I'm a little confused. You say that committees should not
> >> > make or change policies, but you are a member of the Provisional
> >> > Volunteer Council. Do you intend the PVC to simply be a proposal mill,
> >> > throwing out ideas for the community to debate?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> That's an important question.  In general I would say more yes than no,
> >> but it's still an important point that needs to be hammered out by all
> >> the PVC.  With the number of active projects in Wikimedia the Council
> >> cannot presume to dictate what each of these projects will do.  If it
> >> does that it will soon lose credibility and influence among the
> >> communities.  Policies need to go back and forth between committee and
> >> community until there is is agreement.  The same also applies to any
> >> amendment of existing policy.  Naturally there need to be criteria for
> >> what constitutes community agreement.
> >>
> >> Ec
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>