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

[Ray Saintonge]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Ray Saintonge  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.
>>     
> Hoi,
>
> 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.
>   
Jesse, above, quite concisely expressed "The language subcommittee was 
specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language 
subdomain creation policy."  Let's take that as a starting point, with 
the understanding that similar circumstances could apply to other 
committees.

There are functions there: formulating and implementing. Formulating, 
however, does not mean unilaterally adopting policies.  A committee that 
does this too easily becomes a rogue.  Once a policy has been drafted it 
can be presented to the relevant community for adoption.  A first draft 
is likely to get a lot of feedback, and good ideas for improvement, so 
the committee reviews, redrafts and resubmits.  This process can be 
repeated as often as circumstances require until the community is 
satisfied enough to adopt it.  I'll address the notion of community 
satisfaction later.

Let's suppose then that the language committee develops a general policy 
for which projects will be developed in a new language, and that that 
policy has been duly accepted by the community.  It then realizes that 
the policy makes no mention of extinct languages, either to include or 
exclude them.  It then formulates an amendment to deal with that 
deficiency.  That amendment needs to be submitted to the community for 
approval.  If the community fails to give a decisive response, the 
amendment does not become a part of the policy and the question of 
extinct languages remains undecided.

Implementing is a different matter.  If a specific proposal is presented 
for a Tocharian Wikipedia the committee can decide based on the existing 
policies.  If the policy says no to extinct languages it has no option 
but to reject the Tocharian proposal.  If the policy makes no such 
provision the committee has considerably more latitude.
> 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.
>   
What you describe there seems to conflate formulation and 
implementation.  Sure there will be people who try to implement a policy 
change because their pet project has not been adopted.  It's unrealistic 
to believe that such a campaign will get anywhere.  At that point the 
committee will have had the benefit of community support for its 
policy.  The right of a committee to formulate policy is not necessarily 
an exclusive right; they are just in a better position to present 
credible policies. In theory, the complainer could propose that the 
community override policy, but if the committee had a hard time getting 
its policy across in the first place the chances of getting an eccentric 
exemption from policy will be between slim and none.
> Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to
> do.
>
>   
We all know that our communities can talk any issue to death, but at the 
same time we cannot assume that we all understand the phrase "what we 
aim to do" in the same way.  There absolutely needs to be a common 
understanding of what is meant by "community acceptance" of a proposal.  
This would include standards for minimum participation in a decision, 
and what it means when there is insufficient participation.  Too often 
we see policy changes where no-one is able to trace how the change came 
about. or the argument is made that because we have been doing things in 
a certain way it must be policy.  That's not good enough.

That all being said, I think that the languages policy may be a 
relatively easy one to bring into line.

Ec