Mailing List Archive

A proposal for organisation
Hello,

I have given a bit of thought in the issue during the past few days, in
reading all the emails on this list, and I had the opportunity today to
talk with one of the co-founder of the Apache Foundation, in particular
about the way their Foundation is organised. I put wikitech in copy,
because I am pretty sure some of the guys there know the organisation
and will be able to correct me if necessary.

I thought that his description of his Foundation... would very possibly
fit pretty well what it seems many on this list are looking for and
solve some of our current problems.

It has some points in commons with the previous Wikicouncil on which we
had worked, but one of the problems with the Wikicouncil was ... the
rather unclear role of this one.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil

Now, from what I understood from Lars description, I think the Apache
Foundation model could rather well fit us... if so, why trying to
reinvent the wheel ?

I will try to describe below, using largely what is explained on their
site + his comments. Please correct me if you view some
misunterpretations. Also, if you know the organisation from the inside,
please comment.

--------

Ant : Bare facts : their goals (please compare with our goals)

What is the Apache Software Foundation?

The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) is a 501(c)3 non-profit
organization incorporated in the United States of America and was formed
primarily to:

* provide a foundation for open, collaborative software development
projects by supplying hardware, communication, and business infrastructure
* create an independent legal entity to which companies and individuals
can donate resources and be assured that those resources will be used
for the public benefit
* provide a means for individual volunteers to be sheltered from legal
suits directed at the Foundation's projects
* protect the 'Apache' brand, as applied to its software products, from
being abused by other organizations

Ant : Aside from point 3, that's roughly similar to us

--------

The Foundation structure

At the time the ASF was created, there were several separate
communities, each focused on a different side of the "web serving"
problem, but all united by a common set of goals and a respected set of
cultural traditions in both etiquette and process.

Ant : in short, several projects with rather individual communities and
a common goal.

These separate communities were referred to as "projects" and while
similar, each of them exhibited little differences that made them special.

In order to reduce friction and allow for diversity to emerge, rather
than forcing a monoculture from the top, the projects are designated the
central decision-making organizations of the Apache world. Each project
is delegated authority over development of its software, and is given a
great deal of latitude in designing its own technical charter and its
own governing rules.



The foundation is governed by the following entities:

Board of Directors (board) governs the foundation and is composed of
members.

Project Management Committees (PMC) govern the projects, and they are
composed of committers. (Note that every member is, by definition, also
a committer.)


Ant : for us, we currently have the board. Something similar to the PMC
was suggested on the list recently, so as to separate more strictly
board and projects

-----------

Board of Directors (board)

The board is responsible for management and oversight of the business
and affairs of the corporation in accordance with the foundation Bylaws.
This includes management of the corporate assets (funds, intellectual
property, trademarks, and support equipment) and allocation of corporate
resources to projects.

However, technical decision-making authority regarding the content and
direction of the Apache projects is assigned to each respective project
management committee.

The board is currently composed by nine individuals, elected between the
members of the foundation. The bylaws don't specify the number of
officers that the board should have, but historically, this was the
number of the first board and it has never changed. The board is elected
every year.


Ant : note that the board is elected by the members of the Foundation
(ASF Member). Not by all developers whatever their status, but only ASF
members (see below how to get ASF member).

Ant : Lars told me that the board was entirely elected. So entirely came
from within the community.

-------------

Project Management Committees (PMC)

The Project Management Committees are established by resolution of the
Board, to be responsible for the active management of one or more
communities, which are also identified by resolution of the Board.

Each PMC consists of at least one officer of the ASF, who shall be
designated chairperson, and may include one or more other members of the
ASF.

The chair of the PMC is appointed by the Board and is an officer of the
ASF (Vice President). The chair has primary responsibility to the Board,
and has the power to establish rules and procedures for the day to day
management of the communities for which the PMC is responsible,
including the composition of the PMC itself.

Ant : in our case, the PMC (rather than the chair really) might have the
power to make the rules over copyright issues for example


The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight. The main
role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all
legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each
and every release is the product of the community as a whole. That is
key to our litigation protection mechanisms.

Secondly the role of the PMC is to further the long term development and
health of the community as a whole, and to ensure that balanced and wide
scale peer review and collaboration does happen. Within the ASF we worry
about any community which centers around a few individuals who are
working virtually uncontested. We believe that this is detrimental to
quality, stability, and robustness of both code and long term social
structures.

As the PMC, and the chair in particular, are eyes and ears of the ASF
Board, it is you that we rely on and need to trust to provide legal
oversight.

The board has the faculty to terminate a PMC at any time by resolution.

------------


How does someone get PMC Member ?

PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to merit
for the evolution of the project and demonstration of commitment. They
have write access to the code repository, an apache.org mail address,
the right to vote for the community-related decisions and the right to
propose an active user for committership. The PMC as a whole is the
entity that controls the project, nobody else.

-------

How does someone get ASF Member

ASF member is a person that was nominated by current members and elected
due to merit for the evolution and progress of the foundation. Members
care for the ASF itself. This is usually demonstrated through the roots
of project-related and cross-project activities. Legally, a member is a
"shareholder" of the foundation, one of the owners. They have the right
to elect the board, to stand as a candidate for the board election and
to propose a committer for membership. They also have the right to
propose a new project for incubation (we'll see later what this means).
The members coordinate their activities through their mailing list and
through their annual meeting.

Ant : note the subtle difference between an PMC member (dedicated to his
project , acquire a right to manage his project) with an ASF member
(dedicated to the Foundation or at least the general goal as opposed to
a specific project). Most people on this mailing list are typically ASF
type...

Ant : a subtility mentionned by Lars is that there is no limitation to
the members of ASF. It is a sort of confirmation process rather than
election. A person is recognised as "involved and trusted", hence she
becomes a member. So, there is not this notion we had previously thought
in the wikicouncil idea that 5 seats should be given to english
wikipedia, whilst only 3 for the french wikibooks and 1 for the catalan
wikiquote. As a result, the membership grows and grows... roughly 150
people if I remember well. Lars mentionned that when the quorum for vote
will become hard to reach, they will probably un-ASF memberise the
inactive members.


What do ASF members do ?

They elect the board...

Ant : now, think about it. If ASF members are *officially* ASF members,
they are not anonymous. All of them have their real name known. They are
real members of a legal entity. For us, anons or people refusing to give
their real names (at least privately) could not be ASF members. However,
they could elect (or support) other people to become ASF members.

Ant : another thing not mentionned on their website but which I was
explained : each project committee must mandatorily have at least 2 ASF
members on it. They also have an incubator area, where new projects are
started and tested. Similarly, these projects must be "headed" by a
committeee (elected by its own members), on which must be found at least
2 ASF members.

---------

Other Foundation Entities

After infrastructure and incubator, the foundation hosts several other
entities more or less formalized open to ASF members and to invited
experts or individuals that do not directly create code but serve for
specific purposes. They are:

the conference organizing committee (aka concom) -- responsible for the
organization of the official ASF conference (aka ApacheCon)

the security committee -- responsible for the handling of potential
security holes in the software produced by the foundation that might
impact our users. It gets contacted by the finders of the problems
before the problem report is made available to the public, to allow the
projects to provide a fix in time for the report, thus reducing
vulnerability to a minimum

the public relations committee -- responsible for the fund raising
(collaborates with the concom since the conference is one of the major
sources of income of the foundation) and public relations - including
trademark licensing and other issues regarding management of the Apache
brand, raising of funds, and is responsible for the press-related issues
like press releases for major ASF events or dispatching requests for
interviews.

the JCP committee -- responsible for the liaison between the ASF and the
Java Community Process (the ASF is a member of the JCP Executive Committee)

the licensing committee -- responsible for the legal issues associated
with licensing and license compatibilities and for the revision of the
Apache Software License

Ant : guess what ? That looks as our committees...

------

Congrats to all those who made up so far.
I summarize.


An organisation with
* a board
* members (ASF members)
* aside committees (event, public relations etc...)

ASF Members elect the board.

A collection of projects, whose participants elect ASF members.

Each project has a governing committee in charge, on which there are at
leasts 2 ASF members, and which report to the board of the ASF.

Comments ?

Ant



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Anthere, thank you for your very informative, thought provoking and as
always highly original contribution to the discussion :-)

Erik Zachte


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Anthere wrote:
> Now, from what I understood from Lars description, I think the Apache
> Foundation model could rather well fit us... if so, why trying to
> reinvent the wheel ?

It could work, except that all the democratic bits would have to be cut out.
I've been pushing a membership model with an elected board for a long time,
but it's become clear that the powers that be are fundamentally opposed to
it. The ASF model could work, with the modification that the Board would be
appointed by Jimbo and the members wouldn't exist.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Tim Starling wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>Now, from what I understood from Lars description, I think the Apache
>>Foundation model could rather well fit us... if so, why trying to
>>reinvent the wheel ?
>
>
> It could work, except that all the democratic bits would have to be cut out.
> I've been pushing a membership model with an elected board for a long time,
> but it's become clear that the powers that be are fundamentally opposed to
> it. The ASF model could work, with the modification that the Board would be
> appointed by Jimbo and the members wouldn't exist.
>
> -- Tim Starling

Okay

But could we discuss the impossible idealistic option nevertheless ?

ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Anthere wrote:
> Now, from what I understood from Lars description, I think the Apache
> Foundation model could rather well fit us... if so, why trying to
> reinvent the wheel ?
>
Seems reasonable to me. Of course we don't have to copy every detail
exactly, but as a general method of organization it both seems like a
good idea and has a track record of success.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Tim Starling napisał(a):
> Anthere wrote:
>> Now, from what I understood from Lars description, I think the Apache
>> Foundation model could rather well fit us... if so, why trying to
>> reinvent the wheel ?
>
> It could work, except that all the democratic bits would have to be cut out.
> I've been pushing a membership model with an elected board for a long time,
> but it's become clear that the powers that be are fundamentally opposed to
> it. The ASF model could work, with the modification that the Board would be
> appointed by Jimbo and the members wouldn't exist.

If I may, I would like to throw in a little personal comment. Please,
don't take this personal Tim, your mail is not a reason in itself,
rather it's an excuse to say the things I've been thinking for the past
2 or 3 weeks.

Here goes...

The level of cynism in this debate is starting to get on my nerves at times.

Some of you don't like the way the Foundation works right now. I'm
perfectly OK with that.

Some people may not really dislike the way the Foundation works, but
think it could work better and are trying to change it for the better.
Great, go for it.

What I don't like is when the first group keeps saying things which I
can only summarize as "Har har har. Good one, really. You do know this
is never going to work, right?"

Please, do *not* do that. It is really annoying.

If you want things to change - help Ant and the others out. If you don't
want to change anything - say so. Or you can just sit back, relax,
*refrain from throwing in cynical remarks* and see what happens next.
There is no other option.

Thank you.

--
Best regards,
Łukasz "TOR" Garczewski
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Delirium wrote:

>Anthere wrote:
>
>
>>Now, from what I understood from Lars description, I think the Apache
>>Foundation model could rather well fit us... if so, why trying to
>>reinvent the wheel ?
>>
>>
>>
>Seems reasonable to me. Of course we don't have to copy every detail
>exactly, but as a general method of organization it both seems like a
>good idea and has a track record of success.
>
>-Mark
>
>
>
My understanding of the Apache Foundation is that it is involved with
and supported small groups of sophisticated technical developers focused
on a specific field of software development and maintenance.

Might be worth considering how the track record translates to a
Foundation attempting to attract and support the efforts of millions of
volunteers for parallel philanthropic tasks.

regards,
lazyquasar

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
On 6/15/06, Anthere <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have given a bit of thought in the issue during the past few days, in
> reading all the emails on this list, and I had the opportunity today to
> talk with one of the co-founder of the Apache Foundation, in particular
> about the way their Foundation is organised. I put wikitech in copy,
> because I am pretty sure some of the guys there know the organisation
> and will be able to correct me if necessary.
>
> I thought that his description of his Foundation... would very possibly
> fit pretty well what it seems many on this list are looking for and
> solve some of our current problems.

Thanks for sharing that.

Let me try and summarize in "applying to us" to see if I have understood well.

So we'd have the following defined roles

*Community members (members of all Wikimedia projects)

*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.

*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.

*Wikimedia Foundation board of directors - are elected within the pool
of members of the Wikimedia Foundation.

*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.

I think that's it.

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.

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.

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.

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).


Delphine

--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Hello,

On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:54:15AM +0200, Anthere wrote:
...
> I have given a bit of thought in the issue during the past few days, in
> reading all the emails on this list, and I had the opportunity today to
> talk with one of the co-founder of the Apache Foundation, in particular
> about the way their Foundation is organised. I put wikitech in copy,
> because I am pretty sure some of the guys there know the organisation
> and will be able to correct me if necessary.
>
> I thought that his description of his Foundation... would very possibly
> fit pretty well what it seems many on this list are looking for and
> solve some of our current problems.
>
...
> Each project has a governing committee in charge, on which there are at
> leasts 2 ASF members, and which report to the board of the ASF.
>
> Comments ?
>

One dissimilarity - what are the "projects"? In the sense of ASF it
may be Wikipedia, Wikinews, Commons, etc. Here the projects are
language versions of "meta-projects".
Commiters have common languages - code and English. Wikimedia
projects do not. You can hardly effectively oversight a Wikimedia
project if you dont understand the language. => question - if you take
board members and their freinds, and maybe even theirs friends, does it
cover the spectrum of Wikimedia languages? I would guess it doesn't.

Another dissimilarity is in the existence of local chapters. How do
they fit in the above scheme?

Anyway, it would solve some current problems, but not all.

Jan Kulveit
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Jan Kulveit wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:54:15AM +0200, Anthere wrote:
> ...
>
>>I have given a bit of thought in the issue during the past few days, in
>>reading all the emails on this list, and I had the opportunity today to
>>talk with one of the co-founder of the Apache Foundation, in particular
>>about the way their Foundation is organised. I put wikitech in copy,
>>because I am pretty sure some of the guys there know the organisation
>>and will be able to correct me if necessary.
>>
>>I thought that his description of his Foundation... would very possibly
>>fit pretty well what it seems many on this list are looking for and
>>solve some of our current problems.
>>
>
> ...
>
>>Each project has a governing committee in charge, on which there are at
>>leasts 2 ASF members, and which report to the board of the ASF.
>>
>>Comments ?
>>
>
>
> One dissimilarity - what are the "projects"? In the sense of ASF it
> may be Wikipedia, Wikinews, Commons, etc. Here the projects are
> language versions of "meta-projects".
> Commiters have common languages - code and English. Wikimedia
> projects do not. You can hardly effectively oversight a Wikimedia
> project if you dont understand the language. => question - if you take
> board members and their freinds, and maybe even theirs friends, does it
> cover the spectrum of Wikimedia languages? I would guess it doesn't.

If course it does not...
I would be tempted to say that Wikimedia projects are the projects (so,
Wikipedia, Wikinews etc...), rather than by breaking down to language.
Why so ? Because even if they have a different language, the various
language versions share the same goals (or precisely *should* share the
same goal), the same needs and the same threats.

A direction of thought would be to examine to areas of authority of the
PMC. Here are my suggestions
* ensuring all projects are following the same goal
* overseeing tm issues (the project logo, the project tm, domain names...)
* overseeing the general threats facing this particular project (legal
threats faced by wikiquote are definitly different from those faced by
Wikipedia)
* overseeing the licencing issue of the project (note that this
naturally occured when wikinews chose another set of licensing... for
all language version wide)
* oversee technical needs (wikiversity or wiktionary needs are specific
to a project, not to a language version)

etc...

Naturally, the PMC can not cover all languages version. But if that
committee has 20 members (for example), I guess they will always cover
more languages than the current board ;-)

> Another dissimilarity is in the existence of local chapters. How do
> they fit in the above scheme?

I do not see why local chaters would get a specific involvement in the
PMC scheme.
They could get involved in the membership scheme by also having up to a
certain number of representative on the Foundation.

> Anyway, it would solve some current problems, but not all.

Sure.

Remind me what are the other problems you have in mind ?


> Jan Kulveit

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
On 6/14/06, Anthere <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How does someone get ASF Member
>
> ASF member is a person that was nominated by current members and elected
> due to merit for the evolution and progress of the foundation. Members
> care for the ASF itself. This is usually demonstrated through the roots
> of project-related and cross-project activities. Legally, a member is a
> "shareholder" of the foundation, one of the owners. They have the right
> to elect the board, to stand as a candidate for the board election and
> to propose a committer for membership. They also have the right to
> propose a new project for incubation (we'll see later what this means).
> The members coordinate their activities through their mailing list and
> through their annual meeting.
>
> Ant : note the subtle difference between an PMC member (dedicated to his
> project , acquire a right to manage his project) with an ASF member
> (dedicated to the Foundation or at least the general goal as opposed to
> a specific project). Most people on this mailing list are typically ASF
> type...
>
> Ant : a subtility mentionned by Lars is that there is no limitation to
> the members of ASF. It is a sort of confirmation process rather than
> election. A person is recognised as "involved and trusted", hence she
> becomes a member. So, there is not this notion we had previously thought
> in the wikicouncil idea that 5 seats should be given to english
> wikipedia, whilst only 3 for the french wikibooks and 1 for the catalan
> wikiquote. As a result, the membership grows and grows... roughly 150
> people if I remember well. Lars mentionned that when the quorum for vote
> will become hard to reach, they will probably un-ASF memberise the
> inactive members.
>
>
> What do ASF members do ?
>
> They elect the board...
>
> Ant : now, think about it. If ASF members are *officially* ASF members,
> they are not anonymous. All of them have their real name known. They are
> real members of a legal entity. For us, anons or people refusing to give
> their real names (at least privately) could not be ASF members. However,
> they could elect (or support) other people to become ASF members.
>
> Ant : another thing not mentionned on their website but which I was
> explained : each project committee must mandatorily have at least 2 ASF
> members on it. They also have an incubator area, where new projects are
> started and tested. Similarly, these projects must be "headed" by a
> committeee (elected by its own members), on which must be found at least
> 2 ASF members.
>

I think this is the most interesting part of the organizational
structure. 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.

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.

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.

Yes, this whole idea directly contradicts the ideas of some of the
people currently in power. But unlike Tim Starling I don't think it's
an idea that should be given up. The composition of Wikimedia's board
is not static, and neither is the opinion of any member of it. I
think we can convince the board that this is the way to go. Wikimedia
is a public charity, not a private foundation. Ultimately it is
dependent on receiving a broad base of community support, not just the
support of a few insiders.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
On 6/15/06, Anthere <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Delphine Ménard wrote:

> > So we'd have the following defined roles
> >
> > *Community members (members of all Wikimedia projects)
> >
> > *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.
>
>
> Correction : in the ASF, the PMC are chosen by the community itself. By
> support from the community (a bit as we agree on our sysops).
> In our case, that makes sense, because the board does not know enough
> the local community to suggest names necessarily in a wise fashion.
> It seems to me as well these PMC should pretty much be self-organised.
> However, it would probably be best that the board has a veto over those.
> Another option would be that they be appointed by board upon a
> suggestion of names given by their community.
> I would myself support "elected by community with board veto".

Right, I missed the election part, and jumped to the resolution part. My bad.

>
> The PMC have a couple of officers, such as a chair and a secretary.
> Those could either be appointed by the board or appointed by committee
> members with veto from board. But in any cases, the officers have a
> legal responsability, so should absolutely be RealPerson.
>
>
> > *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.
>
> Correction again. WMF members should not be appointed by the board. They
> should be elected by the community. I would even go as far as to suggest
> that there should be NO board veto over these ones. If a problematic
> person slips in, it will not be a big deal, because of the size of that
> membership. We could expect a membership of over 100 people. They could
> indeed be issued from anywhere.

Here I do not understand if you're correcting my understanding of how
ASF works, or my application to WMF.

This part:
"How does someone get ASF Member
ASF member is a person that was nominated by current members and elected
due to merit for the evolution and progress of the foundation. Members
care for the ASF itself."

is not clear as to who elects the ASF members. My understanding is
that they were nominated by an ASF member (or through an ASF member
upon recommandation from someone external) and voted in by the
existing ASF members. Seems I am wrong.

> > *Wikimedia Foundation board of directors - are elected within the pool
> > of members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Note : in the ASF, all board members are actually *from* the pool of
> members and elected by the members.
> We might wish to make it possible for "externals" to join the board as
> well. In this case, we could imagine having the membership pool electing
> for an "external" to join the board (now, the question is, could we
> imagine 100 people voting to allow, say, Stallman, to join the board ?
> Would that be reasonable ?). Or we could have board members been allowed
> to appoint up to xx external people to get on the board.

Well, my take on that, and how I understood it, is that ASF members
could come from outside, since they were voted in by the existing
members. But if it is the community that elects the ASF members, then
that is moot.
[snip]

> > 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.
>
> This is the place where I do not understand your explanation.
> If the board appoints members, and is then elected by members... we
> might just get stuck in a loop. This is not at all what the AFS did. The
> community elect the membership. The membership elect the board.
> I think that this model could get very much in the wrong direction... if
> the membership is very limited in size (it would actually be a
> pre-election of the board).
> But if the membership is rather around 100 people (for example), then
> the risk of having a total mess in the elected body is actually pretty
> limited.

And this is where we seem to disagree. The board might choose to keep
people out as long as possible, but it is neither in their interest,
nor in the interest of the organisation. If people are voted into the
membership by the existing members, there has to come a time where the
body that votes the members in is big enough to ensure diversity. Of
course, if the board and the first members stop at 10 people, then the
model doesn't work. My take is that membership of 10 people is rather
stupid, and that 100 sounds like a better approach, whether it is set
as a goal to reach in a certain time frame, whether the number is set
etc. would still need to be determined.

>
> Note that a suggestion I would do is to include amongst groups of
> voters, meta and chapters. This would largely tip the balance in favor
> of those who are *actually* working for Foundation issues.

You forget that many meta users and chapter members are *also* editors
in a project or another. This could lead to people either voting
twice, or having to choose sides (the project or the chapter? meta or
wikipedia?)
>
> We might get to something like
> * Wikipedia can elect up to 30 members overall to become members
> * Wikibooks can elect up to 20 ...
> * Wikiquote can elect up to 1 ... (just kidding)
> * Meta can elect up to 20 members
> * All chapters members can elect up to 20 members
>
> etc...
>
> It may be that people are supported in two places. So what ? Who cares
> if there is no strictly fixed number ?
>
> There is another point...
> You said "a good project editor does not necessarily make a good
> Foundation member".
> Yup... so what about "forcing" people to make a *choice* ?
> Either PMC member... or Foundation member ?
> The same skills are not required...

Yes, that is indeed a must-be requirement. You have to chose your battles.

>
> (as a reminder, all PMC must have 2 Foundation member on them. These 2
> guys may volunteer or be appointed by board or appointed by MWF members.
> But only these 2 may be both on WMF membership AND a PMC).
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Nod. The PMC members could be elected by project, with a veto from WMF.
> Or a pool be elected by project, and the final members appointed by WMF
> (roughly, the english arbcom system).
> I would not suggest that all should give their real life identity as it
> would exclude too many people. We might require that only from the chair
> and co.

I personally don't like the veto system. It is uncomfortable both for
the board *and* the people involved. Pool to choose from is much
better.

> The *most* important point would be to very very clearly define their
> scope of action. They would have no particular rights as editors over
> the other editors for example, nor would they have the right to
> run/manage the local projects as "editor in chief".

This is where any model fails, coming to think of it. If the PMC's are
elected by the community and have some kind of oversight granted by
legal means, where does the "legal" part of their task stops and the
"community mandate" starts? If those PMC's are held by community
recognition, it is my belief that they will, at some point, have to
make a choice.

The big problem with Wikimedia as I see it, is that we are trying to
apply something that works to build an encyclopedia (utter democracy,
collaborative community decisions) to a world with different rules
(legal, financial, etc.), and most of all, rules which can't really be
changed with a community decision the way we change spelling or
bibliography rules.

The same way copy/pasting the ASF model, or the Greenpeace model, ot
the US Federal model, you name it, doesn't work, copy/pasting the
Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects model to the organisation doesn't work
either.

So well, I'll have to think about this more.

Delphine
--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 12:27:47PM +0200, Anthere wrote:
> Jan Kulveit wrote:

> > One dissimilarity - what are the "projects"? In the sense of ASF it
> > may be Wikipedia, Wikinews, Commons, etc. Here the projects are
> > language versions of "meta-projects".
> > Commiters have common languages - code and English. Wikimedia
> > projects do not. You can hardly effectively oversight a Wikimedia
> > project if you dont understand the language. => question - if you take
> > board members and their freinds, and maybe even theirs friends, does it
> > cover the spectrum of Wikimedia languages? I would guess it doesn't.
>
> If course it does not...
> I would be tempted to say that Wikimedia projects are the projects (so,
> Wikipedia, Wikinews etc...), rather than by breaking down to language.

Thats nice idea and I would like it to be that way, but is it reality?
In social sense, how much are the people from various language connected?
Do they form one community, pay attention to the same disscussions?

> Why so ? Because even if they have a different language, the various
> language versions share the same goals (or precisely *should* share the
> same goal), the same needs and the same threats.
>

They share ultimate goal, but wether thay have the same needs and
threats is questionable. Wikipedias are very different in size and
age and needs and threats may scale differently with size.

For example the problem of en: with libelous articles about living perosns
is practically nonexistent in cs: - the RC are of such size that still
every new article is inspected by several users. Problems which led to
semi-protection on en: can be easily solved by hand - if there is an
attempt to vandalize an article about a controversial politician in
average one in a weeks, its easy to revert it by hand. If the frequency
is once per minute, it makes normal editing impossible. Etc.

Apart from that, the communites may be in various stages of
[[meatball:WikiLifeCycle]]. Somewhere the community is just finding
its way how to decide policy issues and if someone wants make a new
recommendation/policy, all he has to do is be bold and write it.
Elsewhere it a formal process with voting and, elsewhere matter of
weeks of wikipolitics and reading of megabytes of old talk,...

> A direction of thought would be to examine to areas of authority of the
> PMC. Here are my suggestions
> * ensuring all projects are following the same goal
Sure, but thats very broad.

> * overseeing tm issues (the project logo, the project tm, domain names...)
That's IMO more suitable task for one specialized tm/domains officer of
the foundation. (should be one person responsible for dealing with
firestormforces in case of wikipedia.eu, other for wikimedia.eu, yet another
for www.wikimania.eu?)

> * overseeing the general threats facing this particular project (legal
> threats faced by wikiquote are definitly different from those faced by
> Wikipedia)
As I wrote above, threats scale. There may be wider difference among
Wikipedias than among projects in general.

> * overseeing the licencing issue of the project (note that this
> naturally occured when wikinews chose another set of licensing... for
> all language version wide)
That doesnt seem practical. While in theory, language versions are
independent of countries, in practice in many cases law of some country
is more equal than some other. (eg image licensing issues)

> * oversee technical needs (wikiversity or wiktionary needs are specific
> to a project, not to a language version)
Dont forget Commons, which are even more different :)

> etc...
>
What in areas where responsibility toward foundation may clash with
will of project contributors? Overseeing the threats - ok, but in case
of legal threats, who will be that one to interfere with the normal editor
process of the project, and who will be liable for the results?

> Naturally, the PMC can not cover all languages version. But if that
> committee has 20 members (for example), I guess they will always cover
> more languages than the current board ;-)
>
> > Another dissimilarity is in the existence of local chapters. How do
> > they fit in the above scheme?
>
> I do not see why local chaters would get a specific involvement in the
> PMC scheme.
> They could get involved in the membership scheme by also having up to a
> certain number of representative on the Foundation.
>
> > Anyway, it would solve some current problems, but not all.
>
> Sure.
>
> Remind me what are the other problems you have in mind ?
>

It was allready disscussed here. Generally the overwhelming scope of
board members work, from long-term planning to investigating trollish
email complains about checkuser abuse.

If you wanted more specificic examples what bother me - I won't give
examples of problems in day-to-day tasks, but in longterm perspective
IMO there are some things which are talked about for years, it seems
everybody agrees, yet there are very little visible results. Single
login, some "stable version/validation/1.0/..." support, etc.

Jan Kulveit

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
--- Anthere <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Congrats to all those who made up so far.
> I summarize.
>
>
> An organisation with
> * a board
> * members (ASF members)
> * aside committees (event, public relations etc...)
>
> ASF Members elect the board.
>
> A collection of projects, whose participants elect
> ASF members.
>
> Each project has a governing committee in charge, on
> which there are at
> leasts 2 ASF members, and which report to the board
> of the ASF.
>
> Comments ?
>
> Ant
>
>
>
>


Personally, I really like this model a great deal.
I like it much better as it is here than with any of
the modifications which have already been proposed.
This really could work easily without major elections
in most cases. I think we should keep it as simple as
possible. Start off with all current buearucrats
being Project Members ask them to immediately nominate
one(?) other person from where they are a bueruecrat
and two(?) people from a language too small to have a
buerucrat. That is the seed membership which should
allow initial elections of officers and voting on
basic bylaws etc. From then on any Project Member can
nominate anyone to join as in Apache, also future
buearucrats do not automatically become members. Once
that is setup we begin to worry about how to seed the
Foundation Memebership. I think that Foundation
Membership should be drawn from Project Members and
Chapter Members pretty much exclusively without
"making a choice" of which membership card one person
can carry. Although I do not think *officers* at the
Project Level should hold any position on Foundation
Level commitees at the same time, I do not see a
problem with an officer being simple voting Foundation
Member. Nor do I see a problem with Foundation
Committee members being simple voting Project or
Chapter Members. I imagine the Foundation Membership
would be pretty self-balancing. If for example the
Foundation Membership begins to be over weighted with
Wikipedia Project Members the Chapter Members and
other Non-pedia Project Members could easily put a
stop to more Wikipedia Projects Members being
confirmed and confirm people from other areas to
restore balance.

As to concerns that smaller languages will be left
out, and that they have different issues. I think the
first can be easily avoided as so many people strongly
believe in promoting smaller languages. Honestly can
they be more left out in this new system than they are
now? That they face different challenges according to
size is even more reason to keep them together so they
can learn from each other. A place were RC can be
checked by hand will one day grow, and to learn in
advance how to deal with libel on a larger project can
only be a benifit. The problems faced at a smaller
languages can find many suggestions from those who
have already "been there and done that". But I think
the Project Membership (especially non-pedia ones)
will be as concerned with common technical issues as
legal or procedural ones. Besides that there are many
issues that *do* scale. How to encourage people to
work on core topics, instead of pet projects for
example. There could always be a backdoor built in to
allow the Board to appoint people from
un-representented languages to Project Membership if a
complaint comes up through the Chapters. But I do not
think it would come to that.

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
Re: [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Somebody wrote:

>I personally don't like the veto system. It is uncomfortable both for
>the board *and* the people involved. Pool to choose from is much
>better.
>
>
Personally I think this is a very incorrect approach.

It can tend to mask crony networks.

Having to veto the choices, nominations, or elected candidates will
inevitably show a trend if cronyism or factionalism gets established.
This process should be about getting effective
managers/governers/leaders that the "community" accepts as effective and
in whom the legal trustees can be equally confident. The ideal incoming
leader is percieved as effective in both key roles, operations within
the foundation and content creation or other valuable community tasks.

Might be feasible in other organizations but considering that we start
from a crony network currently in charge how will allowing the crony
network to wait until an appropriate crony or someone they like who
might someday become a crony to become available in the "pool" restore
any confidence of fair representation in the rest of the community at large?

Might as well save time and energy and have the Board or Jimbo appoint
their buddies in the first place.

Regarding discomfort. It is no more comfortable for people nominated
to hang around waiting indefinately for a call that will never come than
it is to be told firmly no, you are not accepted for the position.

This is why most well run companies or organizations will eventually
send a letter of some kind telling aspiring candidates that there is no
place currently open or another interviewee was selected for the
position. Thank you for your interest and time.

regards,
lazyquasar

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>
>>I personally don't like the veto system. It is uncomfortable both for
>>the board *and* the people involved. Pool to choose from is much
>>better.
>>
>>

Choosing in a pool may also be a problem if the pool was selected
through a complete election process, as the board would be expected to
choose the people according to the percentage of support they got.
This is the case for the english arbcom. I am not aware Jimbo ever felt
embarassed with any of the pool member, but it is likely he feels
compound to pick up the top of the pool.

Choosing in a pool selected by support/oppose election type would be
much easier, but a much more complicated process if the number of
nominees is largely bigger than the number of final members. Is it best
to pick up 1 person with 80% of support - 10 votes, or to pick up 1
person with 70% of support - 100 votes ?

I think the final decision is mostly one based on what we want the
Foundation type to be, private Foundation (business Foundation) or
public Foundation (communittee Foundation) ?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Delphine Ménard wrote:

>On 6/15/06, Anthere <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Delphine Ménard wrote:
>>
>>
>>Note that a suggestion I would do is to include amongst groups of
>>voters, meta and chapters. This would largely tip the balance in favor
>>of those who are *actually* working for Foundation issues.
>>
>>
>You forget that many meta users and chapter members are *also* editors
>in a project or another. This could lead to people either voting
>twice, or having to choose sides (the project or the chapter? meta or
>wikipedia?)
>
Representing more than one project should in no way give a person two
separate votes. There's nothing wrong with choosing to vote one way or
the other.

>>We might get to something like
>>* Wikipedia can elect up to 30 members overall to become members
>>* Wikibooks can elect up to 20 ...
>>* Wikiquote can elect up to 1 ... (just kidding)
>>* Meta can elect up to 20 members
>>* All chapters members can elect up to 20 members
>>
>>etc...
>>
>>It may be that people are supported in two places. So what ? Who cares
>>if there is no strictly fixed number ?
>>
>>There is another point...
>>You said "a good project editor does not necessarily make a good
>>Foundation member".
>>Yup... so what about "forcing" people to make a *choice* ?
>>Either PMC member... or Foundation member ?
>>The same skills are not required...
>>
>>
>Yes, that is indeed a must-be requirement. You have to chose your battles.
>
Most Foundation members/councillors should be PMC members.representing
that PMC. Why should people be forced to make a choice?

>>(as a reminder, all PMC must have 2 Foundation member on them. These 2
>>guys may volunteer or be appointed by board or appointed by MWF members.
>>But only these 2 may be both on WMF membership AND a PMC).
>>
I don't see the point of this

>>The *most* important point would be to very very clearly define their
>>scope of action. They would have no particular rights as editors over
>>the other editors for example, nor would they have the right to
>>run/manage the local projects as "editor in chief".
>>
>>
>This is where any model fails, coming to think of it. If the PMC's are
>elected by the community and have some kind of oversight granted by
>legal means, where does the "legal" part of their task stops and the
>"community mandate" starts? If those PMC's are held by community
>recognition, it is my belief that they will, at some point, have to
>make a choice.
>
No. In a federal system of government citizenship in the broader
country is not incounsistent with citizenship in a constituent state. A
PMC would be the governing body of a project. Members of that project
who choose to operate outside the law need to accept the legal
consequences.. Your expression "oversight granted by legal means" is
unclear. In terms of legal obligations it doesn't matter how the PMCs
are chosen. To maintain the separation that you mentioned before it is
important to maintain the autonomy of the projects.

>The big problem with Wikimedia as I see it, is that we are trying to
>apply something that works to build an encyclopedia (utter democracy,
>collaborative community decisions) to a world with different rules
>(legal, financial, etc.), and most of all, rules which can't really be
>changed with a community decision the way we change spelling or
>bibliography rules.
>
Does this need to be a problem?

>The same way copy/pasting the ASF model, or the Greenpeace model, ot
>the US Federal model, you name it, doesn't work, copy/pasting the
>Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects model to the organisation doesn't work
>either.
>
We can use any of these for ideas, but ultimately it would be our own model.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Anthere wrote:

>Jan Kulveit wrote:
>
>
>>One dissimilarity - what are the "projects"? In the sense of ASF it
>>may be Wikipedia, Wikinews, Commons, etc. Here the projects are
>>language versions of "meta-projects".
>>Commiters have common languages - code and English. Wikimedia
>>projects do not. You can hardly effectively oversight a Wikimedia
>>project if you dont understand the language. => question - if you take
>>board members and their freinds, and maybe even theirs friends, does it
>>cover the spectrum of Wikimedia languages? I would guess it doesn't.
>>
>>
>If course it does not...
>I would be tempted to say that Wikimedia projects are the projects (so,
>Wikipedia, Wikinews etc...), rather than by breaking down to language.
>Why so ? Because even if they have a different language, the various
>language versions share the same goals (or precisely *should* share the
>same goal), the same needs and the same threats.
>
>A direction of thought would be to examine to areas of authority of the
>PMC. Here are my suggestions
>* ensuring all projects are following the same goal
>
This is really a question of how detailed the goal will be. The goal of
building an encyclopedia is general enough, as is ensuring NPOV, but
once you get away from general pronciples and start to micromanage the
whole thing will fall apart. As the goals become more detailed ensuring
should not depend imply enforcing.

>* overseeing tm issues (the project logo, the project tm, domain names...)
>* overseeing the general threats facing this particular project (legal
>threats faced by wikiquote are definitly different from those faced by
>Wikipedia)
>* overseeing the licencing issue of the project (note that this
>naturally occured when wikinews chose another set of licensing... for
>all language version wide)
>* oversee technical needs (wikiversity or wiktionary needs are specific
>to a project, not to a language version)
>
>etc...
>
>Naturally, the PMC can not cover all languages version. But if that
>committee has 20 members (for example), I guess they will always cover
>more languages than the current board ;-)
>
PMCs are not needed for all projects in all languages. A small language
project may do quite well with a one man governance model, and may very
much benefit from that even if that person has dictatorial tendencies.
However, as these projects grow applied governance models should grow
with them until they are big enough to need a full-scale PMC

>>Another dissimilarity is in the existence of local chapters. How do
>>they fit in the above scheme?
>>
>>
>I do not see why local chaters would get a specific involvement in the
>PMC scheme.
>They could get involved in the membership scheme by also having up to a
>certain number of representative on the Foundation.
>
Some level of chapter involvement in both the Foundation and PMCs is
lkely desireable, but for different reasons. At the Foundation level
they would participate in co-ordinating responses to the legal
situations in each country. At the project level they could would
likely help to co-ordinate issues relating to national dialects. In
French it would make sense if Canadian, Belgian and Swiss chapters were
represented on the PMC for each French language project.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: A proposal for organisation [ In reply to ]
Birgitte SB wrote:

>Personally, I really like this model a great deal.
>I like it much better as it is here than with any of
>the modifications which have already been proposed.
>This really could work easily without major elections
>in most cases. I think we should keep it as simple as
>possible. Start off with all current buearucrats
>being Project Members ask them to immediately nominate
>one(?) other person from where they are a bueruecrat
>and two(?) people from a language too small to have a
>buerucrat. That is the seed membership which should
>allow initial elections of officers and voting on
>basic bylaws etc. From then on any Project Member can
>nominate anyone to join as in Apache, also future
>buearucrats do not automatically become members. Once
>that is setup we begin to worry about how to seed the
>Foundation Memebership. I think that Foundation
>Membership should be drawn from Project Members and
>Chapter Members pretty much exclusively without
>"making a choice" of which membership card one person
>can carry. Although I do not think *officers* at the
>Project Level should hold any position on Foundation
>Level commitees at the same time, I do not see a
>problem with an officer being simple voting Foundation
>Member. Nor do I see a problem with Foundation
>Committee members being simple voting Project or
>Chapter Members. I imagine the Foundation Membership
>would be pretty self-balancing. If for example the
>Foundation Membership begins to be over weighted with
>Wikipedia Project Members the Chapter Members and
>other Non-pedia Project Members could easily put a
>stop to more Wikipedia Projects Members being
>confirmed and confirm people from other areas to
>restore balance.
>
>As to concerns that smaller languages will be left
>out, and that they have different issues. I think the
>first can be easily avoided as so many people strongly
>believe in promoting smaller languages. Honestly can
>they be more left out in this new system than they are
>now? That they face different challenges according to
>size is even more reason to keep them together so they
>can learn from each other. A place were RC can be
>checked by hand will one day grow, and to learn in
>advance how to deal with libel on a larger project can
>only be a benifit. The problems faced at a smaller
>languages can find many suggestions from those who
>have already "been there and done that". But I think
>the Project Membership (especially non-pedia ones)
>will be as concerned with common technical issues as
>legal or procedural ones. Besides that there are many
>issues that *do* scale. How to encourage people to
>work on core topics, instead of pet projects for
>example. There could always be a backdoor built in to
>allow the Board to appoint people from
>un-representented languages to Project Membership if a
>complaint comes up through the Chapters. But I do not
>think it would come to that. /listinfo/foundation-l
>
This would be a helpful approach to getting the ball rolling.

We begin with what works, and deal with problems pragmatically rather
than trying to imagine every conceivable hurdle ahead of time. By-laws
should reflect practice; not the other way around.

Ec

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