[Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Michael Snow wrote:
> Eia wrote:
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired.
>> Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009. Could
>> someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement
>> (will be/is) made?
>>   
>>     
> We're currently reevaluating the ombudsman commission as part of a 
> larger rethinking of the committee system that was established some 
> years ago, before the foundation had much in the way of staff or 
> structure. This will be a significant topic in our board meeting next 
> week, and I hope we can provide more information after the meeting.
>
> In the meantime, if anyone would like to offer feedback, I would be very 
> happy to hear it. In particular, ideas or suggestions on what our needs 
> are and how best to satisfy them. I'm less interested in random 
> complaints about this or that committee, I think we're already aware of 
> most of the concerns that have been raised, although anyone who thinks 
> they know of a problem nobody has ever mentioned before is welcome to 
> contact me off-list. I'm more interested in analysis of how our 
> committees work, what their strengths and limitations are, what can be 
> reasonably expected of them, and how we should fill in the gaps.
>
>   


I took a trip down memory lane, having a vague recollection
that I had in fact been the first to suggest a committee
structure in my candidateship platform in the very first
elections to the board of trustees in 2004. I found that
at least Anthere had made some mention of work groups
in her candidate platform (and no, I didn't bother digging
up which of us was the first to edit that into our candidate
statement). I did find that the way I formulated my thoughts
then, has stood the test of time remarkably well (in terms of
reflecting the general manner I still think about these things).

So without further ado, this is what I said then:

<quote>
If other trustees agree; appointing /working groups/ of
qualified people to prepare workable choises (in consultation
with both the board of trustees and the users of the various
Wikimedia projects) for policies and institutions that the
users may adopt through either /consensus acclamation/
or if neccessary, /qualified majority voting/.

These working groups consisting of 3 to 5 /appointed
members/ and 1 to 3 trustees from the board of trustees.

Suggested (incomplete) list of working groups:

    * /Copyright and intellectual property licencing policies./
    * /Member association structures and bylaws./
    * /User community institutions and policies./
    * /Crossproject integration./
    * /Steering committee./ (This including the whole Board of trustees
      and a number of appointed members determined by the Board.)


</quote>

I infact have very little of consequence to add to
these thoughts I then had, before there ever was
a board of trustees. The starkest contrast
between this and the current system is that
all board members are not *inside* what is
perhaps the semi-equivalent of the Steering
committee in my proposal. That is to say,
the advisory committee does not contain
all of the board of trustees as its members.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen