Mailing List Archive

On 6/9/06, oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization.
> i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive
> responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those
> of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not
> been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing
> organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.
>
> in my opinion:
> 1. the only way this organization, its projects and mission, its vitality
> and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented
> between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision.
> 2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by
> installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is
> mandatory.
> 3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the
> executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional
> people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to
> do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at
> all.
> 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the
> executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
>
> i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts,
> but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how
> specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the
> who-does-what, which is not of my concern now.
> also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
>
> for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
>
> oscar

I was asking today of certain people if there was any document that
formally set out the relationship between the Foundation and the
individual projects operating under it. I have been told that there
is no such document. I'm sorely tempted to work on that document,
which would set out what the Foundation does for the projects, what
the Foundation expects from each project, and how the projects will
insure that the Foundation is looking after their interests.

Some other issues came out of that discussion -- such as our
precarious copyright situation -- and those also need to be addressed.

It seems that Oscar's on a similar tack here.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10-jun-2006, at 2:44, oscar wrote:

> 3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of
> the
> executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very
> professional
> people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better
> things to
> do", if you get my meaning)
>

I'm sorry, but I don't.

Plus I don't understand why "this whole organization, its projects
and mission, its vitality and appeal", would collapse if the
separation "between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their
respective supervision" would not be implemented as strict as you
would like it to be.

> , and in general not deal with the projects at
> all.
> 4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects,
> advise the
> executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.

Again I don't understand why such a strict separation should be
necessary.

> i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these
> thoughts,

I think that would be a good idea.

So far all you have come up with was "I want a strict separation".
You can't convince people if you don't make clear why such a strict
separation should be necessary in the first place.

> but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how
> specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized,

You mean *should* be organized, in order to prevent a total collapse,
right?
("the only way this organization (...) will survive").

IMHO rather strong words and little explanation, Oscar.


Erik vdMb aka Muijz


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 08:55:23AM +0200, Erik van den Muijzenberg wrote:
> On 10-jun-2006, at 2:44, oscar wrote:
>
>
> Again I don't understand why such a strict separation should be
> necessary.

What's your proposal, Muijz? :)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I have quite a large number of opinions on this.
There needs to be an executive in place with the subcommittees which can
act relatively autonomously but are responsible to the executive. At the
same time I would like to see us have Wikicouncil, where people from the
projects meet to discuss them and issues arising out of them.

Wikicouncil would then have someone who reported back to the executive
and again be responsible to them.

The fact is, Joe and Joanne editor couldn't really care less how the
organisation is ran so long as everything works. The organisation needs
to be ran by experts with a small amount of accountability to the user
base (which I feel Wikicouncil would achieve)
Cheers,
Nathan

oscar wrote:

>hi all,
>
>i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization.
>i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive
>responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those
>of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not
>been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing
>organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.
>
>in my opinion:
>1. the only way this organization, its projects and mission, its vitality
>and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented
>between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision.
>2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by
>installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is
>mandatory.
>3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the
>executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional
>people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to
>do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at
>all.
>4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the
>executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.
>
>i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts,
>but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how
>specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the
>who-does-what, which is not of my concern now.
>also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
>
>for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
>
>oscar
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/10/06, Nathan Carter <magnaboy@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> I have quite a large number of opinions on this.
> There needs to be an executive in place with the subcommittees which can
> act relatively autonomously but are responsible to the executive. At the
> same time I would like to see us have Wikicouncil, where people from the
> projects meet to discuss them and issues arising out of them.
>
> Wikicouncil would then have someone who reported back to the executive
> and again be responsible to them.
>
> The fact is, Joe and Joanne editor couldn't really care less how the
> organisation is ran so long as everything works. The organisation needs
> to be ran by experts with a small amount of accountability to the user
> base (which I feel Wikicouncil would achieve)

I've long believed that we should have a council/assembly/etc.
composed of representatives selected by each project; this body should
elect, at the very least, some portion of the board of directors.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Kelly Martin schrieb:

> I've long believed that we should have a council/assembly/etc.
> composed of representatives selected by each project; this body should
> elect, at the very least, some portion of the board of directors.

The page is on meta since ages:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil

Maybe we'll get it started one time.

greetings,
elian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 6/10/06, Nathan Carter <magnaboy@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>I have quite a large number of opinions on this.
>>There needs to be an executive in place with the subcommittees which can
>>act relatively autonomously but are responsible to the executive. At the
>>same time I would like to see us have Wikicouncil, where people from the
>>projects meet to discuss them and issues arising out of them.
>>
>>Wikicouncil would then have someone who reported back to the executive
>>and again be responsible to them.
>>
>>The fact is, Joe and Joanne editor couldn't really care less how the
>>organisation is ran so long as everything works. The organisation needs
>>to be ran by experts with a small amount of accountability to the user
>>base (which I feel Wikicouncil would achieve)
>>
>>
>
>I've long believed that we should have a council/assembly/etc.
>composed of representatives selected by each project; this body should
>elect, at the very least, some portion of the board of directors.
>
>Kelly
>
>
>
I agree there should be a Wikicouncil setup which has an influence on
the executive, but I do not believe that the executive needs to be
elected by the "community". Sure, the community may have a little
influence but we need to remember that the community is a seperate
entity to the foundation itself.
Cheers,
Nathan.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think Oscar's idea is really great, because it mixes representativity (an elected board) and efficiency (a designated CEO and a perennial administrative staff). The best proposal I have heard.
I would like people against his proposition express their arguments.

Traroth

----- Message d'origine ----
De : oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com>
À : Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
Envoyé le : Samedi, 10 Juin 2006, 2h44mn 15s
Objet : [Foundation-l] on (re)organizing wikimedia

hi all,

i would like to share with you some thoughts on (re)organization.
i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to take care of executive
responsibilities. executive responsibilities are very different from those
of responsible wikians within the projects. so far these things have not
been separated at all, that is understandable for a young and growing
organization, but such cannot last or work well forever.

in my opinion:
1. the only way this organization, its projects and mission, its vitality
and appeal, will survive will be if a strict separation be implemented
between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their respective supervision.
2. separation of executive and project-related responsibilities by
installing an elected council of representatives from the projects is
mandatory.
3. the task of an appointed board should be supervising the work of the
executives, it should be a type of board consisting of very professional
people (the kind which in a way of speaking should have "better things to
do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal with the projects at
all.
4. the council of representatives should supervise the projects, advise the
executive level, and in general not deal with the board at all.

i could be more elaborate in explaining the rationale behind these thoughts,
but i chose to keep things concise. note however, that i spoke of how
specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be organized, avoiding the
who-does-what, which is not of my concern now.
also these things should definitely not be mixed up.

for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)

oscar
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11-jun-2006, at 2:47, Kim Bruning wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 08:55:23AM +0200, Erik van den Muijzenberg
> wrote:

>> Again I don't understand why such a strict separation should be
>> necessary.
>
> What's your proposal, Muijz? :)

Well, I probably missed yours then? :-)

I'm a newbie to this list, so I'll ask questions first, clueless as they
might seem to be. And maybe come up with a proposal later on.


Erik vdMb aka Muijz
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general to
formulate much of an argument for or against. I will
say I am against the Wikicouncil as described on Meta.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
It would be far too large to be effective. I can't
see how a group of more than 20 people max could be
useful in an advisory role. And I have no idea what
"supervision of the projects" actually entails. Any
duties I can think of that could be considered
supervision need a group no larger than 13.

I don't mean to imply oscar's ideas have no merit. We
certainly need to understand where some boundaries are
between different roles. I am not sure why strict
seperation is so neccessary. And I guess I need oscar
to define what he means by

*executive and project-related responsibilities

*supervise the projects

Before I can really comment, although I can say my
current impression is negative.

Birgitte SB


--- Traroth <traroth@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> I think Oscar's idea is really great, because it
> mixes representativity (an elected board) and
> efficiency (a designated CEO and a perennial
> administrative staff). The best proposal I have
> heard.
> I would like people against his proposition express
> their arguments.
>
> Traroth
>
> ----- Message d'origine ----
> De : oscar <oscar.wiki@gmail.com>
> À : Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Envoyé le : Samedi, 10 Juin 2006, 2h44mn 15s
> Objet : [Foundation-l] on (re)organizing wikimedia
>
> hi all,
>
> i would like to share with you some thoughts on
> (re)organization.
> i read that there are plans to put a ceo in place to
> take care of executive
> responsibilities. executive responsibilities are
> very different from those
> of responsible wikians within the projects. so far
> these things have not
> been separated at all, that is understandable for a
> young and growing
> organization, but such cannot last or work well
> forever.
>
> in my opinion:
> 1. the only way this organization, its projects and
> mission, its vitality
> and appeal, will survive will be if a strict
> separation be implemented
> between volunteer-work, executive tasks and their
> respective supervision.
> 2. separation of executive and project-related
> responsibilities by
> installing an elected council of representatives
> from the projects is
> mandatory.
> 3. the task of an appointed board should be
> supervising the work of the
> executives, it should be a type of board consisting
> of very professional
> people (the kind which in a way of speaking should
> have "better things to
> do", if you get my meaning), and in general not deal
> with the projects at
> all.
> 4. the council of representatives should supervise
> the projects, advise the
> executive level, and in general not deal with the
> board at all.
>
> i could be more elaborate in explaining the
> rationale behind these thoughts,
> but i chose to keep things concise. note however,
> that i spoke of how
> specific tasks, responsibilities and work can be
> organized, avoiding the
> who-does-what, which is not of my concern now.
> also these things should definitely not be mixed up.
>
> for what it's worth these are my two euros ;-)
>
> oscar
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/11/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general to
> formulate much of an argument for or against. I will
> say I am against the Wikicouncil as described on Meta.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
> It would be far too large to be effective. I can't
> see how a group of more than 20 people max could be
> useful in an advisory role.

Yes, the only point to a large body as described in the Wikicouncil
proposal is to act as an assembly or congress; in an organization such
as Wikimedia such an assembly would normally be the final governing
authority for the organization, would elect the board and the
officers, and be the legal source of authority for the board and
officers to act. I would not object to Wikimedia moving to a congress
of delegates as the final governing authority, but I suspect such an
idea would be unacceptable at this time to the current Board. In any
case, the entity described by the Wikicouncil proposal has no
authority at all and I see no point in it existing, except perhaps to
throw a nice party at Wikimania.

As you state, an advisory body will function better at a smaller size.
I'm not sure that we're at the state where an advisory board would be
useful, though.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/12/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general to
> It would be far too large to be effective. I can't
> see how a group of more than 20 people max could be
> useful in an advisory role. And I have no idea what
> "supervision of the projects" actually entails. Any
> duties I can think of that could be considered
> supervision need a group no larger than 13.

It can be representatives of the largest part(s), like the English
Wikipedia is the largest and perhaps most active, and most of active
members of this mailinglist are its regular, and I agree it will be
efficient, but at the same time it can happen such body of
representatives fail to representative the broader population of
Wikimedia project editors (like Enlgish Wikipedia editors are less
than the sum of editors of all other projects). If it aims to reflect
voices of users in a systematical scheme, not as well current sporadic
and relying on personal relationships, it would make a sense. But I'm
afraid it isn't at all the representatives of the entire Wikimedia
project community, neglecting the majority of editors who are not
involved into foundation activities.

--
Aphaia
aka
Kizu Naoko
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/12/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > osar's ideas as outlined below are far too general
> to
> > It would be far too large to be effective. I
> can't
> > see how a group of more than 20 people max could
> be
> > useful in an advisory role. And I have no idea
> what
> > "supervision of the projects" actually entails.
> Any
> > duties I can think of that could be considered
> > supervision need a group no larger than 13.
>
> It can be representatives of the largest part(s),
> like the English
> Wikipedia is the largest and perhaps most active,
> and most of active
> members of this mailinglist are its regular, and I
> agree it will be
> efficient, but at the same time it can happen such
> body of
> representatives fail to representative the broader
> population of
> Wikimedia project editors (like Enlgish Wikipedia
> editors are less
> than the sum of editors of all other projects). If
> it aims to reflect
> voices of users in a systematical scheme, not as
> well current sporadic
> and relying on personal relationships, it would make
> a sense. But I'm
> afraid it isn't at all the representatives of the
> entire Wikimedia
> project community, neglecting the majority of
> editors who are not
> involved into foundation activities.
>
> --
> Aphaia
> aka
> Kizu Naoko
> email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com
>

I certainly don't want to see an advisory group of 50%
en.WP editors! However such token represntation as
proposed in the Wikicouncil plan would be of little
practical benifit. It would be better to appoint (or
nominate a short list for election) an advisory board
with an purposeful effort to include editors from both
all types of sister projects and communities of
different sizes while keeping the number of people
within reason. Another option is to encourage
different projects to each form their own sort of
council and each can endorse ideas or write proposals
with the unique goals of each project in mind. Those
are just two rough ideas, there are certainly many
other alternatives.

I believe it is most important that the input of small
languages and non-pedia projects is taken into
conderation in any such advisory council. Not that
every editor is given proportional representation.
The latter would either be too much dominated by en.WP
or else too large to offer useful and timely advice.
Honestly the concerns of en.WP are being heard every
day and would still be heard if they had not a single
seat on such a council (I am not suggesting that!).
The real need for such a council is to find out the
needs/opinions of the smaller projects/lang.
communities which are not currently being heard.

Birgitte SB

P.S. If anyone believes the needs/concerns of en.WP
are not being currently responded to by the WMF,
please correct me now.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Birgitte SB wrote:

>
>I certainly don't want to see an advisory group of 50%
>en.WP editors! However such token represntation as
>proposed in the Wikicouncil plan would be of little
>practical benifit.
>
The one practical value of "Wikicouncil" that I see beyond simply
choosing board members or charter changes (presumably a useful funciton
for such a body) would also be as a source to draw upon for the various
committees that have been established for the WMF. I have been a very
vocal critic over how the membership of these committees have been
established, mainly because they are insular in their constitution and I
believe they will have a strong anti-Wikimedia user bias, with strong
hints of eliteism. If instead you say that you must be an elected
member of the Wikicouncil, that gives a non-discriminatory approach to
joining up, and permits newer (read smaller) projects from also
participating as well.

This isn't to say that the wikicouncil proposal doesn't have problems,
but I think the basic idea does have some merit. It also gives a way to
"grow" board members, so that you can find people with both the
leadership skills and the knowledge of Wikimedia projects that would be
developed rather than making the leap to board member all at once. This
would be assuming that you could follow the path of
admin/bureaucrat/steward/community representative/board member of
increasing responsibilities if you wanted to become involved. The other
approach is to be a famous celebrity or have significant outside
accomplishments (like being a former U.S. President, as an example)
before you are appointed to the WMF board. I don't like this type of
token board members, even though it is commonly done on other non-profit
organizations. A third approach is to be a successful and well-liked
professional staff member of the WMF. I think that some board
positions should be reserved for this sort of person, if only to balance
the board in its attitudes.

--
Robert Scott Horning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Birgitte SB wrote:

>I certainly don't want to see an advisory group of 50%
>en.WP editors! However such token represntation as
>proposed in the Wikicouncil plan would be of little
>practical benifit. It would be better to appoint (or
>nominate a short list for election) an advisory board
>with an purposeful effort to include editors from both
>all types of sister projects and communities of
>different sizes while keeping the number of people
>within reason. Another option is to encourage
>different projects to each form their own sort of
>council and each can endorse ideas or write proposals
>with the unique goals of each project in mind. Those
>are just two rough ideas, there are certainly many
>other alternatives.
>
>I believe it is most important that the input of small
>languages and non-pedia projects is taken into
>conderation in any such advisory council. Not that
>every editor is given proportional representation.
>The latter would either be too much dominated by en.WP
>or else too large to offer useful and timely advice.
>Honestly the concerns of en.WP are being heard every
>day and would still be heard if they had not a single
>seat on such a council (I am not suggesting that!).
>The real need for such a council is to find out the
>needs/opinions of the smaller projects/lang.
>communities which are not currently being heard.
>
Wikicouncil would certainly be a possible body to oversee overall
day-to-day operations. It could function in addition to a governing
Board AND and advisory board.

A governing Board somewhat larger than the present Board would have the
reponsibility of safeguarding assets and core policy, as well as
fulfilling legal responsibilities. It should not be dominated by any
one nation. A majority should be elected (directly or indirectly) by
the community, but the community should not have 75% of the positions on
the Board. The remainder of the Board could be appointed in some
suitable way. A full 75% of the Board members would still be required
to change core values.

An advisory Board could be of indefinite size, completely appointed, and
composed of eminent persons from within and without the community. Its
function would be simply to advise, and it would have no decision making
powers.

A Wikicouncil needs to represent three broad groups: languages,
countries and overall projects. It needs to avoid domination by any one
group or sub-group, and at the same time it needs to avoid becoming so
large as to become unwieldy. The size of the Wikicouncil can be
open-ended but still include policies to slow the growth.

Groups and sub-groups all need a large degree of autonomy, and a higher
level of governance should have its right to impose policies clearly
restricted. The recommended governance scheme for sub-groups needs to
vary in relation to the size of the group.

For countries it would be easy to suggest one seat for each national
chapter as the initial model, but this could change as the chapter idea
becomes more developed. Currently there is still only a handful of
chapters concentrated in countries with functional education systems and
internet access, and no account is taken of the size or etnic
diversities of countries. I think that issues such as whether US
representation should be allocated to states or judicial districts or
whether Belgium should have separate French and Flemish representatives
will need to wait for a later stage of development.

For projects, size matters. Number of articles is an easy metric to
work with for the sake of these comments. A metric that also reflects
active membership and the number of megabytes of data in a project may
be more accurate if it can be developed. I could allow for the fact
that Wiktionay finds stubs perfectly acceptable, or in Wikisource it
could cope with decisions of whether a given book is all on one page or
divided into chapters.

Basing this on the completely arbitrary metric of 25,000 main namespace
articles in a language on any project with that many articles would be
guaranteed one seat on the Wikicouncil. Smaller languages within that
project would be able to combine their numbers to receive one seat for
each 25,000 articles. Larger languages within a project on a sliding,
perhaps logarithmic, scale.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

<snip my desire for an alternative to a proportionally
representative Wikicouncil>

> Wikicouncil would certainly be a possible body to
> oversee overall
> day-to-day operations. It could function in
> addition to a governing
> Board AND and advisory board.
>
> < snip governing Board >
>
> <snip advisory Board>
>
> A Wikicouncil needs to represent three broad groups:
> languages,
> countries and overall projects. It needs to avoid
> domination by any one
> group or sub-group, and at the same time it needs to
> avoid becoming so
> large as to become unwieldy. The size of the
> Wikicouncil can be
> open-ended but still include policies to slow the
> growth.
>

Compare this paragraph with your openinig sentance:
"Wikicouncil would certainly be a possible body to
oversee overall day-to-day operations."
I am sorry but I do not believe all this would be
effective. I doubt it is possible to actually
assemble a group as described above, and I am
confident such a group could not oversee day-to-day
operations.

> Groups and sub-groups all need a large degree of
> autonomy, and a higher
> level of governance should have its right to impose
> policies clearly
> restricted. The recommended governance scheme for
> sub-groups needs to
> vary in relation to the size of the group.
>
> For countries it would be easy to suggest one seat
> for each national
> chapter as the initial model, but this could change
> as the chapter idea
> becomes more developed. Currently there is still
> only a handful of
> chapters concentrated in countries with functional
> education systems and
> internet access, and no account is taken of the size
> or etnic
> diversities of countries. I think that issues such
> as whether US
> representation should be allocated to states or
> judicial districts or
> whether Belgium should have separate French and
> Flemish representatives
> will need to wait for a later stage of development.
>
> For projects, size matters. Number of articles is
> an easy metric to
> work with for the sake of these comments. A metric
> that also reflects
> active membership and the number of megabytes of
> data in a project may
> be more accurate if it can be developed. I could
> allow for the fact
> that Wiktionay finds stubs perfectly acceptable, or
> in Wikisource it
> could cope with decisions of whether a given book is
> all on one page or
> divided into chapters.
>
> Basing this on the completely arbitrary metric of
> 25,000 main namespace
> articles in a language on any project with that many
> articles would be
> guaranteed one seat on the Wikicouncil. Smaller
> languages within that
> project would be able to combine their numbers to
> receive one seat for
> each 25,000 articles. Larger languages within a
> project on a sliding,
> perhaps logarithmic, scale.
>
>

These paragraghs describe a very complicated
logistical mess. And this is just about assigning
seats! Think about how what the actual elections
would entail. Every sub-group must decide on
citizenship; are dual citizens allowed; how far can
one subproject's policy in this regard veer from the
median of the rest. Then the elections must actually
be conducted and counted, but those editiors who
normally count such things will probably be running so
who may perform the duties of striking sockpuppets
etc. Then we must find election auditors with
appropriate language skills, or we can take it all at
face value and hope the whole first session of the
Wikicouncil isn't overrun by accusations of false
elections. After all that, we will have a WikiCouncil
which I believe will be ineffective. And honestly, it
will be mostly made up of people who are buearacrats
on a sub-project.

I must ask is proportional representation really worth
the effort? Even if the effort is half what I believe
it will be, do you really believe the results will be
surprising, that these representatives will not be
current leaders within projects? If you do not
believe the effort is a problem in itself, how do you
feel about how much time it will take to execute these
elections?

Is it not possible to gather a diversity of viewpoints
and leaders with any easier or more effective method?
Do the editors really need to be "represented" or do
they just need to have a designated person (or group)
to approach with larger questions?

Please think for a moment about the origins of
proportional representation. It was designed to make
sure everyone had a voice in a situation where
communication was a real problem. I mean people had
to travel great distances (without airplanes!) to meet
and communicate. It is the lack of *organized*
communication which I believe is our problem. Not the
lack of ability. After all we are speaking about
*wikis* here. Every single editor (barring language)
is able to communicate directly with a Board Member if
they so chose. The development of proportional
representation in order to give editors of a *wiki*
their "voice" in these matters is one of the largest
wastes of effort I have ever heard of. I am sorry to
be so critical of ideas many of you have been working
a long time on, but the more details I hear of this
model the more confident I am that it would be
buearacracy for its own sake. What we need is a
simple organization that allows the leaders from
sub-projects to collaborate with one another and with
the Foundation. We need a "chain of accountabilty" to
ensure problems are solved or passed on up to until
they reach the board (with the research already
done!). We do not need a goverment. I think we could
build something workable from the base of the Apache
model. I am sure there are also other models we could
work from instead. However, I do not believe a
parlamentary goverment is one of them.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l