[Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] A proposal for organisation

Thu Jun 15 08:55:25 UTC 2006

On 6/15/06, Anthere <anthere9 at 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