[Foundation-l] Would you consider being on the Board?

Thu Jun 15 08:25:07 UTC 2006

Walter van Kalken wrote:

>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I have been eagerly awaiting Wikiversity for about three years now as it 
>>>was an obvious synergistic project.   I would be curious as to what the 
>>>real holdup is with it.   Are we afraid of hardware or bandwidth 
>>>limitations?  Are a bunch of self motivated learners to potentially 
>>>radical and threatening to the status quo?
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Perhaps the irony is that the board has deliberately chosen not to
>>engage in "top down management" and to let this community "manage
>>itself".  This has a lot to recommend it, because the wikiversity
>>proposal is a lot stronger for it.
>>
>>But if you are really upset that this community-driven process takes so
>>long, then instead of clamoring for the board to not micromanage, you
>>should perhaps ask us to do so.  I am quite sure that we could get
>>Wikiversity approved and up and running in 2-3 weeks time, if we chose
>>to run roughshod over the community to do it.
>>
>>This is actually a very typical scenario, of course.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Although the community should ideally decide about things it is my 
>feeling that that is more often than not an utopian thought. The problem 
>is everybody tries to throw their opinions in a debate and tries to get 
>attention to these opinions. This usually results in an endless debate. 
>Many debates within our community therefor are already going on for 2,3 
>or more years. This because some people leave. Some people join and new 
>views are expressed and the same debate is extended again. Because of 
>this we never reach any conclusions to a debate. Which is one of the 
>things that make people very tired of wikimedia (me for instance)
>
>I feel that there are 3 solutions:
>
>1) A top down approach. The community gets x time to debate an issue 
>(say 1 - 3 months) after that the boards takes this debate into account 
>and makes a decision and that is final
>
>2) A variant of 1) The community appoints 1 or 2 discussionleaders. They 
>will guide the debate in phases. Thesis->Antithesis etc. And will write 
>a conclusion to the debate at the end. And present this conclusion as 
>the community consensus and the board has to accept this.
>
>3) The least feasible though I think an interesting option. People start 
>to group themselves in parties and every party has 1 person as its 
>spokesperson in the debate. This means that it will not become a 
>cacophonia of voices and the debate might proceed faster. After 1-3 
>months the  spokespersons should reach a consensus which is acceptable 
>to most.
>
>Hope someone reads this
>
>Waerth/Walter van Kalken
>_______________________________________________
>
I read it.

Some mighty fine reasoning.

 From my perspective all of these approaches and variations have been 
implemented from time to time locally so you are spot on.

regards,
lazyquasar