[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

Fri Apr 4 12:57:27 UTC 2008

Everyone is responsible for things which is doing. However, it is hard
to put to someone a responsibility for something which is done by
others.

So, yes, VC members should be responsible for their work: how do they
delegate communities' will and how do they their job inside of the
working groups (should talk and should make decisions). However, as
delegates, they can't be responsible for the will of the community/ies
which they represent.

And here is one example of what do I mean:

- I/you/whoever think that it would be useful to make NPOV regulation
and implementation group. Such group would take care about NPOV all
over the projects (which is a lot of work). Such group should have
power to implement NPOV at a particular project if community is not
able to do so. And, of course, members of that group may be members of
VC or not. I proposed, also, that VC should choose members of that
group (it is not so nice to work on implementation of anything related
to opposing opinions, so we need to protect members of that group
somehow).
- I/you/whoever give that proposal to VC.
- VC should have a body (or, initially, the whole VC) which accepts
such proposals, which is talking about it and which if the proposal
has a sense, VC group prepares the final version of the document.
- VC alone shouldn't be able to create such group. Delegates should
give some time (a month or two or whatever) to talk about that
proposal with particular communities and take their opinion about it.
After that time delegates should be able to say what decision was made
by particular communities. After counting votes of all communities (or
community groupings), we may say if the decision passed or not. Let's
say it passed...
- We've got a powerful body for a specific issue: NPOV regulation
group. Members of this group are persons with names and they are
responsible for their actions. Also, members of this group are
appointed by members of VC, which means that members of VC are
responsible for choosing particular persons. Ultimately, all of them
are responsible to the global community and particular communities: if
someone is not doing a good job, they will be removed from position.

But, I think that I said similar things a couple of times already.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  When you are of the opinion and when this opinion is share in the council
>  that the members of the council are not responsible and only parrot what
>  they perceive their community wants, the whole council will be
>  irresponsible. Power without responsibility is a recipe for disaster.
>
>  There is no need for people to talk about all that is wrong when as a result
>  there is only talk. We already have this. We have it in many places and it
>  is as effective.
>
>  When the council is not responsible for its actions why should anyone take
>  heed of what its opinion is ? What would be the benefit to the board, to the
>  organisation ?
>
>  Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
>
>  On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >  The short answer is you are. The longer answer is that things are about
>  > >  priorities. For me language and localisation is a priority. For you the
>  > >  introduction of scientists is a priority. For others it is responding
>  > to
>  > >  mail. Both you and me do what we can and we might be able to do more
>  > >  effectively. The operative word is DO. We DO what we can.
>  >
>  > While I understand what are you talking about, I need to say that it
>  > is not my responsibility because it is not my priority :) While I have
>  > some priorities in my Wikimedian activities (making a higher level of
>  > automation and development of communities around the projects), I am
>  > doing a lot of things which I may do because of my position somewhere.
>  > So, if I did something which is out of the scope of my priorities, I
>  > expect to find someone who is willing to take it (even as a scratch of
>  > the project). However, there is no such place, except to write it on
>  > the list or on the wiki and leave it as is.
>  >
>  > >  When you think SUL has been implemented, you are largely right and
>  > largely
>  > >  wrong because it has only been implemented for admins. For me it is a
>  > >  godsend. I have been active on several new projects since and it has
>  > saved
>  > >  me a lot of time. For others it has not been implemented and one of the
>  > >  reasons is that there is no group of people willing or able to get
>  > involved
>  > >  into the enormous amount of admin that will be the result. If anything
>  > there
>  > >  is a need for people to DO things. When a council will take
>  > responisibility
>  > >  and coordinate the needs for such activities, it will be a good thing.
>  > When
>  > >  the council tells others what to do it will be an unmitigated disaster.
>  >
>  > I think that you didn't take enough care about the my position which
>  > is very clear: VC members should be *delegates* of communities' will
>  > and persons who are working on a particular issues inside of the
>  > working groups. According to my concept, they shouldn't be able to
>  > decide anything related to the global policies. Contributors from the
>  > projects should do that.
>  >
>  > >  When you observe that nobody is responsible, you are right up to a
>  > point.
>  > >  The board is primarily involved in overseeing the WMF ORGANISATION. It
>  > has
>  > >  always done a minimal job interfering in the projects. If a council is
>  > to do
>  > >  what needs doing for the projects, absolutely, great idea, when will
>  > you
>  > >  start. When the council coordinates the needs of the projects with the
>  > >  organisation, with the board it will be good. The fun thing is, it does
>  > not
>  > >  need any of the formal powers and capacitites of the board to do that.
>  > It
>  > >  only needs to DO this thing in a credible way.
>  >
>  > I said a number of times that I am not participating in this issue
>  > because of legal issues, but because of community issues. I understand
>  > and support need for transparency, but I don't think that we urgently
>  > need a body which would supervise the Board, but the body which would
>  > take care about community issues.
>  >
>  > >  To answer your last question. YES all WMF projects have something more
>  > in
>  > >  common. They are all to make information / knowledge available to all
>  > the
>  > >  people of the world.
>  >
>  > Then, I would ask you what do the Wikimedian projects have more in
>  > common than a particular one compared to a random free knowledge
>  > institution (of course, out of purely technical issues like interwiki
>  > links and servers are)?
>  >
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>