[Foundation-l] A proposal for organisation

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>In terms of Wikimedia, I'd like to see membership as an
>extremely open thing.  But at the same time, I don't want to see it so
>open as to being "members of all Wikimedia projects", as Delphine
>describes it.
>
Extremely open membership is a great ideal, but it can make it difficult 
to know just who your members are at any given time.  It is also 
difficult to establish any kind of continuity in policy when attendance 
at meeting is highly random.

>One potential problem is that Wikimedia is way too big to have voting
>for every single member.  For this reason and also so that it remains
>"no big deal" like adminship was supposed to be, I'd be strongly
>opposed to voting.  Rather, there should be a clear standard for
>identification and activity and anyone who meets this can apply.  Once
>a member you remain a member as long as you remain active and aren't
>kicked out.
>
I don't think that I would go so far as to characterize these positions 
as "no big deal".  The kind of disputes that arise over the naming of 
admministrators suggest that that slogan is not consistent with what 
happens.  Inactive members should be subject to automatic suspension in 
the absence of maintaining a minimal level of activity, but their 
reinstatement would be just as automatic when they once again meet that 
standard.

>The activity rules would be project specific, and should be met on a
>regular basis in order to continue membership.  I'd like to see the
>activity rules be somewhat tough, just editing a few times a year
>shouldn't cut it.  But participation in offline activities would also
>be taken into consideration.  For example if you show up to stuff
>envelopes you're definitely considered active for that quarter.
>Eventually there should probably be a committee which decides on the
>activity rules.
>
That's acceptable.

Ec