[Foundation-l] Breaking promises (was Re: Where we are headed)

[Anthere]

Troy Hunter wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
>>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter <troyhunter0 at lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
>>>
>>>
>>>With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee
>>>a minimal level of openness in the committees:
>>>- Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted
>>>against it?
>>>- Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
>>>
>>>Erik
>>
>>
>>Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.
> 
> 
> This is a violation of Jimmy's promise to never vote against Anthere and Angela except on matters of grave importance. The September 2004 Wikimedia Quarto states:
> 
> "To date, Tim and Michael have played a minimal part in board discussion and decisions, and there is no plan to change this. In order to ensure that the community voice is real, Jimbo has pledged, as a matter of convention, never to vote against Angela and Anthere, unless he feels that it is an issue of an absolutely fundamental change of direction for the project -- which is not likely to happen, since Angela, Anthere and Jimbo share the essential values of the community and the project. So as a practical matter, power is in the hands of the two democratically elected board members on most issues, and Jimbo defers to that."
> 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/1
> 
> Restated in February 2005: 
> 
> "Angela and Anthere are unbelievably good as board members, and we have
> a casual agreement between us that if the two of them ever vote in one
> direction, I will defer to them, so that it does not matter how Tim
> and Michael vote.  The only exception I would make to this is if they
> wanted something that I felt endangered us in some very extreme way --
> but this is basically impossible because they are so good at what they
> do."
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/20359
> 
> and in April 2005:
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/2922
> 
> Jimmy wrote:
> 
>>The first resolution was something that we discussed at the
>>board level but never quite came to a firm conclusion.  I think that's
>>one which we will revisit at some point in the future.  The general idea
>>was to make sure that committees not engage in excessive secrecy, which
>>is a good idea, but at the same time, we did not want to encumber them
>>with a lot of paranoia that they have to announce evertything all the
>>time.  Different board members had different perspectives on how to get
>>those central points across.
> 
> 
> Yes, different board members had different perspectives. That's to be expected, they come from different backgrounds. Some of them represent the community, some do not. But the elected members were not arguing for an "absolutely fundamental change of direction", were they?


I did not see any problem whatsoever in Jimbo abstaining himself in this 
vote.

I also realised afterwards that both Tim and Michael comments absolutely 
made sense and that such a resolution could not really fit, because each 
committee must organise itself and create its own rules. I support the 
underlying concepts behind the resolution, but also recognise that the 
resolution in itself was making all this a bit too much "one shoe fits all".

Angela and I made a mistake here. We should have allowed more time for 
discussion beforehand. We might have all come to a phrasing that would 
have been acceptable to all of us.
Note that another version of this resolution might be proposed again in 
the future. If there is not till now, it may be because we finally did 
not see the need for it ? Or because we thought these points could be 
achieved differently ? Or because we did not have the time and energy ?

One point should be stressed. It is important that resolutions are 
discussed and re-discussed, so that we try to have it in the voting 
stage in the most satisfactory way for most of us. We sometimes fail to 
do that, either because a decision might appear urgent, or because we 
think that a resolution at some point is fine for all of us whilst it is 
not. We are not perfect ;-)

ant

PS : generally, I think all committees will grow in avoiding the trap of 
excessive and unreasonable secrecy.