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

[Mark Williamson]

So you're saying that because what we have now is better than what we
had before, we should leave it as it is and not try to improve upon
it?

Mark

2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>