[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

Sat Apr 5 08:51:53 UTC 2008

Nathan wrote:
> I think it is unwise to create the VC with no clear idea of what it
> is for or will do. The proposed members of the provisional group are
> similar to the folks who have been discussing this already - I am not
> sure that formalizing the discussion will allow you to achieve a
> consensus on the core issues that you have not previously been able
> to achieve.
>
> I would rather not have a fait accompli situation as Jussi-Ville has
> proposed - forgiveness rather than permission. Why should the Board
> agree to create an amorphous group and include among its members
> those with wildly divergent views of its purpose? Milos wants a group
> with mandatory power over the Board that can function as a meta-ArbCom,
> and others have proposed a merely advisory and intermediary role on issues
> the Board currently does not address. I want this determined in advance by
> those who believe the VC needs to exist - determining whether that is true
> or not requires and understanding of what the VC is supposed to be.
>
> It would be far preferable, in my opinion, to give the community and the
> Board the opportunity to evaluate a fully conceived idea with the agreement of
> a core group of participants *before* the idea is implemented. I don't think
> this is too much to ask, and I see no reason to push beyond to the creation
> of the VC at this time. Legal and governance issues in particular should
> lead to a much more careful and considered approach to this issue.
The big fallacy in this line of thinking is in expecting that a 
provisional body can have any idea ahead of time about what the VC will 
do.  How can a core group have fully conceived ideas without acting like 
a cabal.  The approach taken has involved minimizing the number of 
factors decided before the core group is organized.  The core group list 
has been made public as soon as possible so that everyone will know who 
will be developing these ideas between now and the time that a more 
formal Council is made operational.  This approach is important to 
having an open and transparent process from the beginning.

Yes, there are people in the list with wildly divergent views, but 
that's very healthy.  Do you honestly believe that the group should be 
made up just of people who think the same, just to more quickly achieve 
a hive mind?  Then what?  Do we freeze out those who dared to think 
differently?  A stronger more collaborative environment can only be 
built if there is a place for those divergent views, not by building an 
intellectual fortress that needs to be defended against heretics.

A Council needs to be able to think outside the box without a lot of 
unnecessarily confining preconditions.  You can't get negotiated 
settlements to problems as long as everyone is stuck in fixed modes of 
thinking, or greets new ideas by immediately saying, "Can't do that, the 
rules won't allow it."
  This doesn't mean that Council should simply become a gang of rogues, 
but it does need to find a balance between imaginative new ideas and 
community acceptance.  Procedures for doing that will need to be an 
early agenda item.

Ec