[Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation

[Ray Saintonge]

Delphine Ménard wrote:

>*Community members (members of all Wikimedia projects)
>
Even that requires defining what a project member is.  This is the most 
fundamental question upon which to build.  Initially the elected 
directors were intended to represent the general editorship and the dues 
paying members.  The latter never got off the ground, and we ended up 
with two directors elected by the general editorship.  People who become 
involved beyond the mere occasional edit need to feel that they have 
some ownership in the project, and they need to feel that there is hope 
that their influence will grow with time and contributions. 

A person growing up today, has access to information and opinions on a 
scale unimaginable to even the most powerful leaders of a century ago.  
He also learns to work with these massive quantities of data in his own 
way, since most of his teachers, who learned there own skills in 
managing information a mere generation ago, cannot pass on experiences 
they never had.  Autodidactism breeds innovative minds   There is nobody 
there to tell us the accepted way of doing things, or the received 
wisdom of the professionals.  We have to figure it out for ourselves, 
and our solutions run the gamut from the utterly stupid to the 
absolutely brilliant.  We awaken the Mr. Bean within each of us.

Apply these lessons to the socio-political sector where personal 
analyses and proposed solutions are at odds with the play that goes on 
legislative sandboxes around the world, and you have alienation.  
Alienated people act out; at the extreme this can even come in deadly 
ways. 

To get back to earth, how does this affect WMF?  Perhaps it would be in 
devising a system of membership (or citizenship?) that ensures the 
empowerment of those members to whatever extent is appropriate for that 
individual.

>*Project management committees - for us, these would be people within
>the community appointed by resolution of the board of directors of the
>Wikimedia Foundation. Once appointed, the PMC members have a right to
>propose to add members in their PMC. The PMC would be in charge of
>making sure the legal aspects of each projects are taken care of and
>observed, make sure that procedures are followed in the development of
>the projects. These are not automatically the editors with the
>greatest number of edits, but rather those who have shown a commitment
>to the organisation and the day-to-day running of the projects, taking
>care of legal issues, procedure issues etc. They'd have a
>responsibility and an oversight role. Not an editing power as such
>(ie. they can't impose their POV on an article). Their frame of action
>will have to be very clearly defined, but if it is, they'd be an asset
>to the projects.
>
Although there is much that I agree with in this, I also have concerns.  
A PMC leader who is appointed rather than elected is probably in a 
better position to deal with diverse factions without alienating his 
voters..  That being said, a leader who is constantly battling his 
membership is not likely to be a very effective leader. His personal 
authority will suffer, and so would the project.  The qualities that 
make a good leader are not always obvious to the general editorship.

It is in legal issues that the arms length relationship between the 
projects and the WMF is most important.  Copyright, defamation and 
pornography are the most frequently mentioned.  It needs to be 
remembered that maintaining safe harbors depends very much on the degree 
of editorial control which the WMF has over the projects.  It's 
important to establish protocols where complaints received by the WMF 
about a particular project are passed on to the affected projects for 
action in accordance with established protocols.

>*Wikimedia Foundation members - those would be nominated by the board,
>proposed to the board by anyone else who feels someone should be a
>Foundation member. They could be issued directly from the community,
>from the PMCs or from anywhere else.
>
I argued for a two-tiered governance from the very beginning.  Perhaps 
"Council" might be a less misleading term than "members".  PMC leader of 
all projects of a certain size should certainly be a part of this.  As a 
project gets bigger it can probably have more representatives.  The 
directors could also add such other persons as it deems fit.

>*Wikimedia Foundation board of directors - are elected within the pool
>of members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
Perhaps it should be a bit bigger than what we have now.  The respective 
roles of the directors and other Foundation members should be clearly 
spelled out.

>*Special tasks committees : those are issued from the pool of members
>of the Wikimedia Foundation, or created around and with external
>individuals which show the necessary skills to lead/participate in
>those committees.
>
OK.  Perhaps with a similar structure to the Council, but not 
necessarily composed of the leaders, and with varied mambership threshholds.

>As I see it, this is indeed an interesting bit. To answer Tim's
>concerns (and I agree with Lukasz comment, btw), I believe the fact
>that members of the Wikimedia Foundation would be appointed by the
>board actually make it pretty "safe" for anyone who might have a
>problem with a community elected body. For the record, I am one of
>those. A great editor in a virtual project does not make a great board
>member in a real-life organisation, and the predominance of one
>language or one project does not ensure harmonious representation. The
>model might seem restraining at first (only the board's "friends"
>could be considered as members of the Wikimedia Foundation) but in a
>mid-term perspective, I cannot see the board only appointing their
>best friends/supporters, as it would not scale. And the larger the
>body that nominates, the more diversified the people on it.
>
I agree.  There need to be safeguards to minimize the risks that you 
mention.  It can't be avoided completely

>The way the PMC are set up also gives the board an oversight. However,
>it would be stupid from the board to appoint on the PMCs people who
>have absolutely no community support, because it would make the PMC
>members' job way harder. So in our case, the appointement of PMCs
>could be coupled with polls within communities as to who should be on
>the PMCs. Note that as I understand it, PMCs members have a real life
>responsibility, which would call for a disclosure of their real life
>identity. I would argue that PMC members are not necessarily stewards
>or bureaucrats, which would still be elected as "trusted" community
>members", but rather people who have made clear what their skills and
>agendas are as to the responsibility they are offered in being part of
>a PMC.
>
Whom the Board appoints it can also unappoint.  Stewards are not 
necessarily just representatives of specific projects.  Bureaucrats 
would probably be the first place to look for initial representatives, 
but not the only place.  Each project big enough needs to be given 
separate consideration.

>I would probably still consider a body such as the Wikicouncil in such
>an organisation of things, ie. people voted as "community"
>representatives, who have no "real life" responsibilities per se, but
>are tasked with making sure the communication between community
>members and the Wikimedia Foundation flows. It is high time the
>community be represented by someone(s) rather than speaking through a
>myriad of individuals who, in the end, have no other voice than their
>own.
>
Yes.  The best leaders are most often not the loudest.  They just carry 
on with their duties, and limit their complaints to what really matters.

>I believe that in the end, it is indeed an interesting model. At
>least, it seems to me to make a very clear distinction between
>projects and organisation (the PMCs are the organisation's
>representatives in the projects). My belief is that in the mid-term,
>this lack of separation can be very dangerous, both for the projects
>and the Foundation. This model makes the separation very clear,
>without shutting out the community from accessing the responsibilities
>within the organisation, and without shutting it out from decision, as
>it provides a model for working harmoniously together (everyone knows
>what they have to do and what they're here for).
>
It's not just a matter of how PMCs are chosen.  Defining the 
distinctions is even more important.

Ec