On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thus, not the senate, but assembly is the right form
of our
organization: assembly which would select *paid* Board members.
Besides the load, I want Board members to be accountable to
Wikimedians, not to the for-profit or non-profit entities which give
them money.
I am not, and have not been employed by any Wikimedia organization.
Yes, it's scary to be accountable to people you lead. I completely
understand that.
I have no idea where you get this idea from in my letter. I am not scared
to be accountable to people I lead, and I hope I have stated my readiness
in this department clearly.
The costs of having 100 people assembly won't be significant at all.
First of all, the most of the people in such large body would be
anyways mostly consisted of those going to Wikimedia Conference and
Wikimania. If you really care about money, scale the initial body to
40-50 and ask all chapters that sending three or more people to those
conferences to contribute expenses for one to such body. If you put
that way, the costs could rise up to ~5%, if they raise at all.
If you envisage a large, 100 people assembly during Wikimania or Wikimedia
Conference, then indeed it is possible to arrange without significant
additional cost. However, I believe this is basically an entirely different
idea than the one Denny described (or at least the one I understood we're
discussing). An assembly would be a body who would voice their opinion only
once a year in practice, most likely. I'm not sure what exactly would it
do, but surely it would be difficult for it to agree/vote on situations
happening within a span of weeks, rather than months.
So, please, reconsider your ideas on the line: from speaking about bad
bureaucracy, while in fact increasing inefficient one -- to thinking
about efficient, democratically accountable bureaucracy, with
everybody content by its construction.
I am not convinced if a body of 100 people meeting once a year is an
efficient way to reduce bureaucracy. Of course views may differ.
Said everything above, I have to express that I am pissed off by the
fact that the Board members are constructive as long as they are under
high level of pressure. Whenever you feel a bit more empowered, I hear
just the excuses I've been listening for a decade.
I am saddened you have this perception.
https://xkcd.com/552/
Please, let us know how do you want to talk with us in the way that we
see that the communication is constructive.
That is a good topic for a separate thread! Currently, the list we use is
limited to 1500 English speakers.
An idea that I have been trying to champion for a while was also
community-liaisons: community elected people whose responsibility is
day-to-day communication with the WMF and back. This would not be a
decisive role, and it is independent from whether we have a senate or
assembly or not, but could at least increase the reach of communication and
decision making in some areas.
Also, discourse is a platform that perhaps will take off at some point.
dj