[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

Sun Jun 4 20:55:58 UTC 2006

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Erik Zachte wrote:
> 
>>* Increasingly decison are taken by the board without too much prior
>>discussion in the open, at least on places where I would expect it, like on
>>this mailing list.
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  I don't know of any examples.  But if there are some
> things that you would like to bring up as specifics, I would love to
> consider them.

What about the committee resolutions, such as the following? 

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Special_projects
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Communications_committee

> In particular, the "increasingly" perception is the one I want to
> combat, by trying to make it more clear how things are done, and how
> things have transitioned and continue to transition to having a lot more
> people involved.

I've heard that these days, most things are discussed and decided on a secret mailing list long before they become public. Is that true?

>>(#) I might add 'and created and/or sanctioned by the board'. The board
>>reigns supremely. This does not make the board evil in any way, or its
>>members less respectable, it does not discredit the committees or their
>>members, far from it, all names of committee members that I recognize are of
>>highly valued community members  (I'm not even against any of the committees
>>or their missions, heck I'm going to apply for a committee on invitation and
>>of course undergo normal co-optation procedure) it is simply a control
>>monopoly that I would like to see amended, to strenghten Wikimedia as an
>>organisation.
> 
> 
> In what way would you amend it?  Keep in mind that we are an actual
> organization in the real world, and there are real legal
> responsibilities, very serious ones, that have to be met by the
> organization, and board members have a very heavy burden to be sure that
> these responsibilities are met.  It would not be legal, for example, for
> the board to completely give up decision making authority over a lot of
> different things... but what we can do is involve more people (instead
> of me doing everything, which was the very old way, and then the board
> doing everything, which was the old way, to now an *increasingly*
> community oriented approach of committees and chapters).

You mean "community-oriented" as in oriented towards those people selected by Delphine and Danny to be on the committees? Sounds more like cabal-oriented to me.

>>I'm not sure I would favour to vote on everything, elections can be
>>manipulated. Perhaps the tried system of discussing major choices until a
>>consensus is reached would still work, this list is not flooded by hundreds
>>of trolls, there is still a limited community interested in these issues.
> 
> 
> I think we try really hard to do this, whenever possible.  I am unaware
> of any major changes of direction which were not openly discussed until
> something approaching consensus is reached.  Of course, this list does
> have some trolls, but almost everyone contributing here has a strong
> voice in the future course of the foundation in every way.

Answers.com deal? Committee selection process? Hey, what about the original bylaws of the Foundation, were they discussed until consensus was reached?

[...]
>>* The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
>>paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down
>>management.
> 
> 
> Why do you suppose that an outsider would be chosen for this?

Do you have any candidates in mind at the moment? How many edits do each of them have? 

troy

-- 
_______________________________________________

Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number.  -Lycos Yellow Pages

http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10