[Foundation-l] A proposal for organisation

Thu Jun 15 11:56:56 UTC 2006

On 6/14/06, Anthere <anthere9 at 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