[Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Milos Rancic-2
Forking the issue of Board composition.

We tend to think of Board as the governing body of the movement, not just
WMF. Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing body of
WMF, with shiny cool movement supporting it.

We tend to discuss of community representation, they tend to assimilate
anyone who joins them. While "trust and honesty" are noble words, they tend
to be the words of excuse, covering forced imposition of the dominant
position over everybody inside of the group.

The Board composed as it is now has no capacity to overcome this problem. I
am not talking about particular persons inside of the Board, but about the
culture of assimilation, which usually ends in assimilation, but, as we
could see now, it could end in removal of a Board member.

I see two options to overcome this problem and both of them require wide
consensus, including the present Board.

One option is to restructure the Board itself, the other one is to create
new cover organization, with WMF as one of its institutions.

It's obvious to me that Wikimedia is not an ordinary organization or even
an ordinary movement. The importance of Wikimedia movement is on the level
of smaller country. Our needs are on the level of a city-sized society. And
our governance should be so.

At the moment, we have a kind of a mix which works because of that culture
of assimilation and because WMF makes enough money. Destroying any of those
corruptive powers would destroy WMF itself. So, if we want to change
something, we have to reorganize the structure, not to fix it.

What every organized social group? Yes, assembly (or whatever the name is
inside of the particular structure). If it's about business, it's the
assembly of shareholders. If it's about democratic institutions, it's about
the assembly which represents all members of the society.

WMF Board is quasi-assembly, quasi-government. It will always has partial
excuse that it's about community-elected members, but also that it needs
"an expertise" as a governing body. It's no surprise that the turnover on
the best elections (the last one) was around 10%. Not a lot of Wikimedians
think they are able to change anything and they are right.

I suggested few times that we should create assembly as a real democratic
institution. Such assembly could then appoint the Board as a governing body
or leave to ED and staff to be executive body of the movement.

The other option is to create assembly outside of WMF and make the relation
between them later.

As long as we don't talk about this issue, we will have the same stories
again and again. The set of mistakes Board could make is not finite. And
whenever something odd or harmful happens, we will be talking the same
stories.

By moving it into openly political discourse, we will avoid secrecy and
Wikimedians will be able to influence decisions, outside of closed groups
and personal connections.

(At the end, I am wondering why I am repeating this, as nobody responded to
this idea previous few times. Not even with "this is bad idea because
of...".)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Todd Allen" <[hidden email]>
Date: Jan 9, 2016 19:34
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in
anticompetitive agreements in Google
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
Cc:

> There is still a significant problem the Board does have, though.
> "Chapter/thorg selected seats" are not community seats. And we've recently
> found out that none of the seats at all are actually considered to be
> community-selected, and that a community elected board member can be
> removed without referendum to the community.
>
> A majority, at least six seats, on the Board, should be directly elected
by
> the Wikimedia community. (Not "chapters", the entire community). And
> "directly elected" should mean that the member cannot be removed
> involuntarily except by vote of that same electorate, whether by
referendum

> or the community's own initiative.
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 9 January 2016 at 10:09, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> >
> >
> > >   We are well overdue for a major turnover of board members.
> > > Fae
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> >
> > While I have largely kept out of this thread to this time, this
statement
> > needs to be rebutted.  There are ten seats on the board.  Five of them -
> > all three "community-selected" seats and two of the four board-appointed
> > seats - have changed hands in the last six months.  An additional
> > board-selected seat changed hands not long before Wikimania last year
(Guy
> > Kawasaki).  That means six of the 10 board members have less than a
year's
> > experience in the role.  (One of those has now been removed, but that
still
> > means half the board has very limited experience.)
> >
> > Of the remaining seats, two are "Chapter/Thorg-selected" seats that
will be
> > contested in the near future. Historically, only one of the incumbents
of
> > those seats have been reseated, and I make no predictions for this year.
> > Jimmy Wales is assumed to still hold the Founder seat, and the fourth
> > board-appointed seat is held by longtime community member Alice Weigand.
> >
> > We do not know how the board will decide to fill the recently vacated
> > "community-selected" seat - the options appear to be narrowed to
appointing
> > the fourth-place candidate from the last election (which would bring an
> > experienced board member back to the table) or an election, which could
> > also bring a completely new trustee.
> >
> > At minimum, we already have five board members who weren't board members
> > this time last year.  By the end of their Wikimania board meeting, we
could
> > have as many as eight trustees with less than 18 months of experience
under

> > their belt.  Of all the problems the board has, insufficient turnover is
> > NOT one of them.
> >
> > Risker
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Denny Vrandecic-6
Milos,

I find a lot in your email to agree with.

The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, in my understanding, is not the top
governance body of the Wikimedia movement. It sometimes stands in for that,
because we don't have anything better - but its composition and its legal
obligations suggest that this is and should not be the case.

You write that Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing
body. At least for myself, I can say that this is not the case. My
understanding restricts the Board only to the role of being the Board of
the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not the community. The Board is
not the voice of the community for the Foundation. The community is neither
lead by the Foundation, nor by the Board. I don't even think there is a
community - there are numerous overlapping communities.

It seems to me that in open collaborative projects like ours, the amount of
scrutiny and criticism a governance body receives is negatively correlated
to the amount of competences it has. Creating or deleting content, banning
disruptive users from a project, deciding how the energy of the community
should be spent on creating content? None of these is the business of the
Board. None of these is the competence of the Board. And that’s good.

When I started working on the Croatian Wikipedia, I did not send a request
to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation to see if what I did was good.
When I became the first admin and bureaucrat on the Croatian Wikipedia, it
was not the Board that bestowed these powers on me. When I suggested to
create a Semantic Wikipedia, it was not a request sent to the Board.

The power of the communities does not emanate from the Board. The power of
many of our other organs do not emanate from the Board (some do, though).

Let's say, a specific Wikipedia would be in trouble - maybe there are
reports that it was taken over by a small group of POV-pushers. This would
be a serious issue - what is the body in our movement to deal with that
issue, though? Does anyone argue here that the Board has these powers? What
could the Board do? What other organ would be the right one to make such
decisions? Which other organ is willing to take on these decisions?

I think that the Wikimedia movement needs to reconsider its governance
structures. We need something like a constitution. Maybe a general
assembly, as Milos suggests, or another body that somehow represents the
communities at large is needed. Maybe a reshuffling or explicating of the
powers vested in the current bodies is needed. What is the role of the
affiliates? What should the Board be deciding and what not? How can the
Foundation talk to a body representing the communities? How can we
strengthen the voices of the communities? Which body could credibly
represent the voice of the communities towards the Foundation?

The Board currently is exposed to requirements from a number of different
sources, and sometimes requirements that contradict with each other. In
order to become more effective, I would like to invite everyone to consider
Milos' suggestions and come up with your own. Our movement is now in its
teenage years - let us have a strategic goal of having a better
constitution before we leave adolescence. Let us aim at having a better
understood governance structure before we turn 18.

Cheers,
Denny


On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Forking the issue of Board composition.
>
> We tend to think of Board as the governing body of the movement, not just
> WMF. Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing body of
> WMF, with shiny cool movement supporting it.
>
> We tend to discuss of community representation, they tend to assimilate
> anyone who joins them. While "trust and honesty" are noble words, they tend
> to be the words of excuse, covering forced imposition of the dominant
> position over everybody inside of the group.
>
> The Board composed as it is now has no capacity to overcome this problem. I
> am not talking about particular persons inside of the Board, but about the
> culture of assimilation, which usually ends in assimilation, but, as we
> could see now, it could end in removal of a Board member.
>
> I see two options to overcome this problem and both of them require wide
> consensus, including the present Board.
>
> One option is to restructure the Board itself, the other one is to create
> new cover organization, with WMF as one of its institutions.
>
> It's obvious to me that Wikimedia is not an ordinary organization or even
> an ordinary movement. The importance of Wikimedia movement is on the level
> of smaller country. Our needs are on the level of a city-sized society. And
> our governance should be so.
>
> At the moment, we have a kind of a mix which works because of that culture
> of assimilation and because WMF makes enough money. Destroying any of those
> corruptive powers would destroy WMF itself. So, if we want to change
> something, we have to reorganize the structure, not to fix it.
>
> What every organized social group? Yes, assembly (or whatever the name is
> inside of the particular structure). If it's about business, it's the
> assembly of shareholders. If it's about democratic institutions, it's about
> the assembly which represents all members of the society.
>
> WMF Board is quasi-assembly, quasi-government. It will always has partial
> excuse that it's about community-elected members, but also that it needs
> "an expertise" as a governing body. It's no surprise that the turnover on
> the best elections (the last one) was around 10%. Not a lot of Wikimedians
> think they are able to change anything and they are right.
>
> I suggested few times that we should create assembly as a real democratic
> institution. Such assembly could then appoint the Board as a governing body
> or leave to ED and staff to be executive body of the movement.
>
> The other option is to create assembly outside of WMF and make the relation
> between them later.
>
> As long as we don't talk about this issue, we will have the same stories
> again and again. The set of mistakes Board could make is not finite. And
> whenever something odd or harmful happens, we will be talking the same
> stories.
>
> By moving it into openly political discourse, we will avoid secrecy and
> Wikimedians will be able to influence decisions, outside of closed groups
> and personal connections.
>
> (At the end, I am wondering why I am repeating this, as nobody responded to
> this idea previous few times. Not even with "this is bad idea because
> of...".)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Todd Allen" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Jan 9, 2016 19:34
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in
> anticompetitive agreements in Google
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> Cc:
>
> > There is still a significant problem the Board does have, though.
> > "Chapter/thorg selected seats" are not community seats. And we've
> recently
> > found out that none of the seats at all are actually considered to be
> > community-selected, and that a community elected board member can be
> > removed without referendum to the community.
> >
> > A majority, at least six seats, on the Board, should be directly elected
> by
> > the Wikimedia community. (Not "chapters", the entire community). And
> > "directly elected" should mean that the member cannot be removed
> > involuntarily except by vote of that same electorate, whether by
> referendum
> > or the community's own initiative.
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 9 January 2016 at 10:09, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >   We are well overdue for a major turnover of board members.
> > > > Fae
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > While I have largely kept out of this thread to this time, this
> statement
> > > needs to be rebutted.  There are ten seats on the board.  Five of them
> -
> > > all three "community-selected" seats and two of the four
> board-appointed
> > > seats - have changed hands in the last six months.  An additional
> > > board-selected seat changed hands not long before Wikimania last year
> (Guy
> > > Kawasaki).  That means six of the 10 board members have less than a
> year's
> > > experience in the role.  (One of those has now been removed, but that
> still
> > > means half the board has very limited experience.)
> > >
> > > Of the remaining seats, two are "Chapter/Thorg-selected" seats that
> will be
> > > contested in the near future. Historically, only one of the incumbents
> of
> > > those seats have been reseated, and I make no predictions for this
> year.
> > > Jimmy Wales is assumed to still hold the Founder seat, and the fourth
> > > board-appointed seat is held by longtime community member Alice
> Weigand.
> > >
> > > We do not know how the board will decide to fill the recently vacated
> > > "community-selected" seat - the options appear to be narrowed to
> appointing
> > > the fourth-place candidate from the last election (which would bring an
> > > experienced board member back to the table) or an election, which could
> > > also bring a completely new trustee.
> > >
> > > At minimum, we already have five board members who weren't board
> members
> > > this time last year.  By the end of their Wikimania board meeting, we
> could
> > > have as many as eight trustees with less than 18 months of experience
> under
> > > their belt.  Of all the problems the board has, insufficient turnover
> is
> > > NOT one of them.
> > >
> > > Risker
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Milos Rancic-2
Denny, thanks for supporting this issue moving on. Before few remarks
I would respond inline, I want to say that the *draft* of the idea to
make community assembly have been published by Pharos:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact

I want to give a small background of our work on the proposal:

Richard approached me immediately after I sent the first email from
this thread, so we started to work on it. It turned out that we had
very different perspectives of what should be done. However, we worked
on creating a synthetic proposal, which would cover both sets of
ideas.

I wanted to make a joke-spoiler, but I want to restrain of it because
I want to see if the differences between our approaches are actually
the differences between different cultural/continental background.

Besides two of us, Lodewijk and Lane contributed, mostly with
comments. It turned out that Lodewijk was on the line I started my
idea in discussion with Richard, while Lane was on the line started by
Richard. Both of them found unacceptable the opposite part.

If so, I'd like to ask everybody to try to understand that our future
assembly should be generally acceptable to everybody, no matter of
cultural differences; which means that we should have to reach
consensus in such issues, not limited on Richard's and my approaches
in particular.

Besides that, it's just a draft of the proposal and everything could
be changed as long as we reach consensus about one final proposal. I
am fine with it as long as Wikimedians get a framework to communicate
and make decisions which matter to themselves.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Denny Vrandecic
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> You write that Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing
> body. At least for myself, I can say that this is not the case. My
> understanding restricts the Board only to the role of being the Board of
> the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not the community. The Board is
> not the voice of the community for the Foundation. The community is neither
> lead by the Foundation, nor by the Board. I don't even think there is a
> community - there are numerous overlapping communities.

This is misunderstandings, unless you want to say you don't see Board
as the governing body of Wikimedia Foundation :P

> It seems to me that in open collaborative projects like ours, the amount of
> scrutiny and criticism a governance body receives is negatively correlated
> to the amount of competences it has. Creating or deleting content, banning
> disruptive users from a project, deciding how the energy of the community
> should be spent on creating content? None of these is the business of the
> Board. None of these is the competence of the Board. And that’s good.

This part is very important! There are no "open collaborative projects
like ours". You are not a Board of Reddit with admins controlling
content. Our social structure and civilization implications are far
beyond any of those projects. That's why WMF members -- as long as
there is no community-wide body -- have to have vision, wisdom and
balls. The basis of the most of my criticism of the Board lays in the
fact that it collectively have never shown all three virtues at once.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Lodewijk
Just as a matter of record: While I did contribute comments to the concept
of the council, and am in general very much in favour of such council, I
also made the comment that I don't think the council in its current shape
addresses the real problems at all - because it has one responsibility
(appointing board members) that will distract from what I thinktheir actual
work: giving a platform for the WMF board/staff and potentially chapters to
get constructive input from the community.

It is not that I find their opinions unacceptable, but they are trying to
solve a different perceived problem. In the current shape, I couldn't
support the council, unfortunately - both for the reason I mention above as
some more practical concerns. I don't want a perception to arise that I
would support the concept you link.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Denny, thanks for supporting this issue moving on. Before few remarks
> I would respond inline, I want to say that the *draft* of the idea to
> make community assembly have been published by Pharos:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact
>
> I want to give a small background of our work on the proposal:
>
> Richard approached me immediately after I sent the first email from
> this thread, so we started to work on it. It turned out that we had
> very different perspectives of what should be done. However, we worked
> on creating a synthetic proposal, which would cover both sets of
> ideas.
>
> I wanted to make a joke-spoiler, but I want to restrain of it because
> I want to see if the differences between our approaches are actually
> the differences between different cultural/continental background.
>
> Besides two of us, Lodewijk and Lane contributed, mostly with
> comments. It turned out that Lodewijk was on the line I started my
> idea in discussion with Richard, while Lane was on the line started by
> Richard. Both of them found unacceptable the opposite part.
>
> If so, I'd like to ask everybody to try to understand that our future
> assembly should be generally acceptable to everybody, no matter of
> cultural differences; which means that we should have to reach
> consensus in such issues, not limited on Richard's and my approaches
> in particular.
>
> Besides that, it's just a draft of the proposal and everything could
> be changed as long as we reach consensus about one final proposal. I
> am fine with it as long as Wikimedians get a framework to communicate
> and make decisions which matter to themselves.
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Denny Vrandecic
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > You write that Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing
> > body. At least for myself, I can say that this is not the case. My
> > understanding restricts the Board only to the role of being the Board of
> > the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not the community. The Board
> is
> > not the voice of the community for the Foundation. The community is
> neither
> > lead by the Foundation, nor by the Board. I don't even think there is a
> > community - there are numerous overlapping communities.
>
> This is misunderstandings, unless you want to say you don't see Board
> as the governing body of Wikimedia Foundation :P
>
> > It seems to me that in open collaborative projects like ours, the amount
> of
> > scrutiny and criticism a governance body receives is negatively
> correlated
> > to the amount of competences it has. Creating or deleting content,
> banning
> > disruptive users from a project, deciding how the energy of the community
> > should be spent on creating content? None of these is the business of the
> > Board. None of these is the competence of the Board. And that’s good.
>
> This part is very important! There are no "open collaborative projects
> like ours". You are not a Board of Reddit with admins controlling
> content. Our social structure and civilization implications are far
> beyond any of those projects. That's why WMF members -- as long as
> there is no community-wide body -- have to have vision, wisdom and
> balls. The basis of the most of my criticism of the Board lays in the
> fact that it collectively have never shown all three virtues at once.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Emmanuel Engelhart-5
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
Thank you Milos for pointing here what seems to me the most fundamental
flaw of our current organisation.

The WMF as organisation was created to bring stability and assure that
the daily business is done: keep the platform online, deal with legal
cases and keep a positive financial balance. This is not the same as
leading "in a political manner" the movement. But the WMF tends
meanwhile to do both.

The political history show us that this is not going to work well that
way because both duties are in essence pretty different and have
internal contradictions. As a consequence, the WMF focuses (with
success) on what it was made for: administrative work and is not is
position to do the other part correctly.

As a consequence we indeed face a serious lack of democracy in the way
we are organized and this weak "quality loopback" leads us, as movement,
to regular awkward situations. This is an instability factor.

Back in 2006, I heard for the first time the idea of a democratic
assembly "Wikimedia international" and was sceptical about it. Seeing
how things have evolved, an approach including two organisations, one
political to lead the movement and one administrative to keep core
things running & stability, looks really appealing.

Emmanuel

On 09.01.2016 20:37, Milos Rancic wrote:

> Forking the issue of Board composition.
>
> We tend to think of Board as the governing body of the movement, not just
> WMF. Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing body of
> WMF, with shiny cool movement supporting it.
>
> We tend to discuss of community representation, they tend to assimilate
> anyone who joins them. While "trust and honesty" are noble words, they tend
> to be the words of excuse, covering forced imposition of the dominant
> position over everybody inside of the group.
>
> The Board composed as it is now has no capacity to overcome this problem. I
> am not talking about particular persons inside of the Board, but about the
> culture of assimilation, which usually ends in assimilation, but, as we
> could see now, it could end in removal of a Board member.
>
> I see two options to overcome this problem and both of them require wide
> consensus, including the present Board.
>
> One option is to restructure the Board itself, the other one is to create
> new cover organization, with WMF as one of its institutions.
>
> It's obvious to me that Wikimedia is not an ordinary organization or even
> an ordinary movement. The importance of Wikimedia movement is on the level
> of smaller country. Our needs are on the level of a city-sized society. And
> our governance should be so.
>
> At the moment, we have a kind of a mix which works because of that culture
> of assimilation and because WMF makes enough money. Destroying any of those
> corruptive powers would destroy WMF itself. So, if we want to change
> something, we have to reorganize the structure, not to fix it.
>
> What every organized social group? Yes, assembly (or whatever the name is
> inside of the particular structure). If it's about business, it's the
> assembly of shareholders. If it's about democratic institutions, it's about
> the assembly which represents all members of the society.
>
> WMF Board is quasi-assembly, quasi-government. It will always has partial
> excuse that it's about community-elected members, but also that it needs
> "an expertise" as a governing body. It's no surprise that the turnover on
> the best elections (the last one) was around 10%. Not a lot of Wikimedians
> think they are able to change anything and they are right.
>
> I suggested few times that we should create assembly as a real democratic
> institution. Such assembly could then appoint the Board as a governing body
> or leave to ED and staff to be executive body of the movement.
>
> The other option is to create assembly outside of WMF and make the relation
> between them later.
>
> As long as we don't talk about this issue, we will have the same stories
> again and again. The set of mistakes Board could make is not finite. And
> whenever something odd or harmful happens, we will be talking the same
> stories.
>
> By moving it into openly political discourse, we will avoid secrecy and
> Wikimedians will be able to influence decisions, outside of closed groups
> and personal connections.
>
> (At the end, I am wondering why I am repeating this, as nobody responded to
> this idea previous few times. Not even with "this is bad idea because
> of...".)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Todd Allen" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Jan 9, 2016 19:34
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in
> anticompetitive agreements in Google
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> Cc:
>
>> There is still a significant problem the Board does have, though.
>> "Chapter/thorg selected seats" are not community seats. And we've recently
>> found out that none of the seats at all are actually considered to be
>> community-selected, and that a community elected board member can be
>> removed without referendum to the community.
>>
>> A majority, at least six seats, on the Board, should be directly elected
> by
>> the Wikimedia community. (Not "chapters", the entire community). And
>> "directly elected" should mean that the member cannot be removed
>> involuntarily except by vote of that same electorate, whether by
> referendum
>> or the community's own initiative.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 January 2016 at 10:09, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   We are well overdue for a major turnover of board members.
>>>> Fae
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I have largely kept out of this thread to this time, this
> statement
>>> needs to be rebutted.  There are ten seats on the board.  Five of them -
>>> all three "community-selected" seats and two of the four board-appointed
>>> seats - have changed hands in the last six months.  An additional
>>> board-selected seat changed hands not long before Wikimania last year
> (Guy
>>> Kawasaki).  That means six of the 10 board members have less than a
> year's
>>> experience in the role.  (One of those has now been removed, but that
> still
>>> means half the board has very limited experience.)
>>>
>>> Of the remaining seats, two are "Chapter/Thorg-selected" seats that
> will be
>>> contested in the near future. Historically, only one of the incumbents
> of
>>> those seats have been reseated, and I make no predictions for this year.
>>> Jimmy Wales is assumed to still hold the Founder seat, and the fourth
>>> board-appointed seat is held by longtime community member Alice Weigand.
>>>
>>> We do not know how the board will decide to fill the recently vacated
>>> "community-selected" seat - the options appear to be narrowed to
> appointing
>>> the fourth-place candidate from the last election (which would bring an
>>> experienced board member back to the table) or an election, which could
>>> also bring a completely new trustee.
>>>
>>> At minimum, we already have five board members who weren't board members
>>> this time last year.  By the end of their Wikimania board meeting, we
> could
>>> have as many as eight trustees with less than 18 months of experience
> under
>>> their belt.  Of all the problems the board has, insufficient turnover is
>>> NOT one of them.
>>>
>>> Risker
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>

--
Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
* Web: http://www.kiwix.org
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
* more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Denny, thanks for supporting this issue moving on. Before few remarks
> I would respond inline, I want to say that the *draft* of the idea to
> make community assembly have been published by Pharos:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact



I think it is a good idea to have a sort of community council. To give
credit, Guy Kawasaki just recently proposed something along these lines in
internal discussions. My first take is that it would be good to have some
representation and governance of our movement, not just WMF. It would make
everyone's lives easier, too - it would be easier to consult, seek advise,
etc.

I've been also thinking about revitalizing our Advisory Board - the way I
would like to see it would be dividing it into (a) community (b) tech and
(c) academic subgroups, available for immediate consulting and feedback.

This definitely does not collide with the idea of a community council in
the form that you're proposing, I think. It is worth further discussion.
Should it be continued on meta?

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-01-13 16:32, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
> I think it is a good idea to have a sort of community council. To give
> credit, Guy Kawasaki just recently proposed something along these lines
> in
> internal discussions. My first take is that it would be good to have
> some
> representation and governance of our movement, not just WMF. It would
> make
> everyone's lives easier, too - it would be easier to consult, seek
> advise,
> etc.
>
> I've been also thinking about revitalizing our Advisory Board - the way
> I
> would like to see it would be dividing it into (a) community (b) tech
> and
> (c) academic subgroups, available for immediate consulting and
> feedback.
>
> This definitely does not collide with the idea of a community council
> in
> the form that you're proposing, I think. It is worth further
> discussion.
> Should it be continued on meta?
>
> dj

Hi Dariusz,

there have been several discussions over the years, and those which I
remember (the first one was Lodewijk's proposal in 2008? 2009?) were
either rejected/not endorsed by the board, or got stalled on meta with
no consensus. My impression is therefore that some sort of a preparatory
work is needed to avoid these two traps. Ideally, there would be a
drafting group with a broad representation (possibly the members of the
group will be prohibited to sit in the first edition of the elected
body), and the Board will preliminary express an interest (so that the
group knows the chances are not zero). Of course we can just agree on
electing the representative body witout actually asking the Board, but I
am not sure this would be the right way of doing it.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Pharos-3
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Denny, thanks for supporting this issue moving on. Before few remarks
> > I would respond inline, I want to say that the *draft* of the idea to
> > make community assembly have been published by Pharos:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact
>
>
>
> I think it is a good idea to have a sort of community council. To give
> credit, Guy Kawasaki just recently proposed something along these lines in
> internal discussions. My first take is that it would be good to have some
> representation and governance of our movement, not just WMF. It would make
> everyone's lives easier, too - it would be easier to consult, seek advise,
> etc.
>
> I've been also thinking about revitalizing our Advisory Board - the way I
> would like to see it would be dividing it into (a) community (b) tech and
> (c) academic subgroups, available for immediate consulting and feedback.
>
> This definitely does not collide with the idea of a community council in
> the form that you're proposing, I think. It is worth further discussion.
> Should it be continued on meta?
>

Yes, we'd welcome folks to read the proposal on meta at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact

Sign up there if you like the basic idea, and offer comments and
improvements at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact

Thanks,
Pharos
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Yaroslav M. Blanter
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> there have been several discussions over the years, and those which I
> remember (the first one was Lodewijk's proposal in 2008? 2009?) were either
> rejected/not endorsed by the board, or got stalled on meta with no
> consensus.


I remember some dating back to 2005. But it does not mean the situation has
not matured since.




> My impression is therefore that some sort of a preparatory work is needed
> to avoid these two traps. Ideally, there would be a drafting group with a
> broad representation (possibly the members of the group will be prohibited
> to sit in the first edition of the elected body), and the Board will
> preliminary express an interest (so that the group knows the chances are
> not zero). Of course we can just agree on electing the representative body
> witout actually asking the Board, but I am not sure this would be the right
> way of doing it.
>
>
Agreed. A mixed working group could be a way to go.

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Milos Rancic-2
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
>> My impression is therefore that some sort of a preparatory work is needed
>> to avoid these two traps. Ideally, there would be a drafting group with a
>> broad representation (possibly the members of the group will be prohibited
>> to sit in the first edition of the elected body), and the Board will
>> preliminary express an interest (so that the group knows the chances are
>> not zero). Of course we can just agree on electing the representative body
>> witout actually asking the Board, but I am not sure this would be the right
>> way of doing it.
>>
> Agreed. A mixed working group could be a way to go.

From my perspective, anything which would move the situation from the
status quo would work.

Presently, the discussion has been started on Meta and it would be
good to see your input there. I don't see the proposal as anything in
the form take it or leave it, but as the beginning of the discussion
(or reloading it after a lot of time).

Working group could be created based on that discussion; the other
option -- and I'd like to believe in it -- is to create the final
proposal based on completely public discussion.

Significant difference between the previous attempts to do something
like this is the fact that at least three Board members (Denny,
Dariusz and Guy) support something similar to this idea. Previously,
Board was the body which at least passively obstructed the idea. That
means that we have much better chances for success this time.

So, please join the discussion; if you have a different idea as the
whole proposal, write it there, so we could discuss. We could
rearrange the page into the set of relatively coherent proposals and
discuss about the proposals integrally, about their features and
finally find the best possible solution, which would be the product of
as wide as possible consensus.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Denny Vrandecic-6
My issue with the current proposal on Meta is that it creates a body which
works towards the Board.

This is, in my opinion, a fundamental mistake: it perpetuates the idea that
the Board is the major governing body of the movement at large.

I would very much prefer an independent and strong body that can speak and
represent the communities but is not subordinate to any bodies of the
Wikimedia Foundation, including its Board.

I see how the community council as currently suggested in

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact

can be useful, but I am not sure whether that would resolve the kind of
conflicts that we are seeing currently and which arise from the perception
that the Board is the top body of the Movement, but instead it has legal
obligations to the Foundation.

Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent the
communities than one subordinate to the Board?


On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
> >> My impression is therefore that some sort of a preparatory work is
> needed
> >> to avoid these two traps. Ideally, there would be a drafting group with
> a
> >> broad representation (possibly the members of the group will be
> prohibited
> >> to sit in the first edition of the elected body), and the Board will
> >> preliminary express an interest (so that the group knows the chances are
> >> not zero). Of course we can just agree on electing the representative
> body
> >> witout actually asking the Board, but I am not sure this would be the
> right
> >> way of doing it.
> >>
> > Agreed. A mixed working group could be a way to go.
>
> From my perspective, anything which would move the situation from the
> status quo would work.
>
> Presently, the discussion has been started on Meta and it would be
> good to see your input there. I don't see the proposal as anything in
> the form take it or leave it, but as the beginning of the discussion
> (or reloading it after a lot of time).
>
> Working group could be created based on that discussion; the other
> option -- and I'd like to believe in it -- is to create the final
> proposal based on completely public discussion.
>
> Significant difference between the previous attempts to do something
> like this is the fact that at least three Board members (Denny,
> Dariusz and Guy) support something similar to this idea. Previously,
> Board was the body which at least passively obstructed the idea. That
> means that we have much better chances for success this time.
>
> So, please join the discussion; if you have a different idea as the
> whole proposal, write it there, so we could discuss. We could
> rearrange the page into the set of relatively coherent proposals and
> discuss about the proposals integrally, about their features and
> finally find the best possible solution, which would be the product of
> as wide as possible consensus.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
>
>
>
> Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent the
> communities than one subordinate to the Board?


My concern is that in the long run such a body may lead to excluding
community representation from the Board ("since we have a community body
already..."). Also, I think that we're lacking a senate, not a government
per se.

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

David Goodman-2
Whatever I may think of some of the recent actions of the board,
I think its present role goes well beyond
" bring stability and assure that
the daily business is done: keep the platform online, deal with legal
cases and keep a positive financial balance. "

The key roles are to ensure the quality of WP, and
" to lead   'in a political manner' "  the open information movement.

First, it  it does have the power to deal with a situation  where"Let's
say, a specific Wikipedia would be in trouble - maybe there are reports
that it was taken over by a small group of POV-pushers. "
It has  control of the trademark, and the ability to prevent any particular
WP from using it. It cannot prevent any aberrant group from using our
material while calling itself something else, but it can prevent it calling
itself Wikipedia.
True, this may not be effective in some cases as it used to be, before some
of the individual language chapters had developed organizational and
financial resources of their own, to the extent that some of them could
well persist as the major free encyclopedia in their language communities
even without the WP name

Second, when dealing with the ongoing threats to free information, the WMF
can and does effectively speak for all those interested as perhaps the best
known and the strongest voice. This is not something to be regarded
lightly.  It can organize the greatest general public indignation that any
one organization can, and it can coordinate and act asa center for the work
of others. Much as all languages in the world need a good free
encyclopedia, all the people in the world need this freedom even more.

On the other hand, it is not needed financially--many other groups in the
movement can successfully raise sufficient money to keep the whole
operation going, if not to maintain the present number of programers
working on ancillary projects


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> > Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent the
> > communities than one subordinate to the Board?
>
>
> My concern is that in the long run such a body may lead to excluding
> community representation from the Board ("since we have a community body
> already..."). Also, I think that we're lacking a senate, not a government
> per se.
>
> dj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Denny Vrandecic-6
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
No, I think the questions of community representation on the Board and the
creation of an independent body able to represent the communities are
orthogonal. I do not see anyone suggesting that the Board should not have
community representatives.

But I see the need for a body representing the communities that does not
derive its power from the Board, but from the communities directly.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> > Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent the
> > communities than one subordinate to the Board?
>
>
> My concern is that in the long run such a body may lead to excluding
> community representation from the Board ("since we have a community body
> already..."). Also, I think that we're lacking a senate, not a government
> per se.
>
> dj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Denny Vrandecic-6
In reply to this post by David Goodman-2
David,

thanks for that perspective. I agree that in theory the Foundation has the
power you describe. But it is the same theory that lead to the
implementation of Superprotect, and we know how this worked out. I do not
think that the use of such a power would be accepted.

Or am I wrong?

Denny


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:01 AM, David Goodman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Whatever I may think of some of the recent actions of the board,
> I think its present role goes well beyond
> " bring stability and assure that
> the daily business is done: keep the platform online, deal with legal
> cases and keep a positive financial balance. "
>
> The key roles are to ensure the quality of WP, and
> " to lead   'in a political manner' "  the open information movement.
>
> First, it  it does have the power to deal with a situation  where"Let's
> say, a specific Wikipedia would be in trouble - maybe there are reports
> that it was taken over by a small group of POV-pushers. "
> It has  control of the trademark, and the ability to prevent any particular
> WP from using it. It cannot prevent any aberrant group from using our
> material while calling itself something else, but it can prevent it calling
> itself Wikipedia.
> True, this may not be effective in some cases as it used to be, before some
> of the individual language chapters had developed organizational and
> financial resources of their own, to the extent that some of them could
> well persist as the major free encyclopedia in their language communities
> even without the WP name
>
> Second, when dealing with the ongoing threats to free information, the WMF
> can and does effectively speak for all those interested as perhaps the best
> known and the strongest voice. This is not something to be regarded
> lightly.  It can organize the greatest general public indignation that any
> one organization can, and it can coordinate and act asa center for the work
> of others. Much as all languages in the world need a good free
> encyclopedia, all the people in the world need this freedom even more.
>
> On the other hand, it is not needed financially--many other groups in the
> movement can successfully raise sufficient money to keep the whole
> operation going, if not to maintain the present number of programers
> working on ancillary projects
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent
> the
> > > communities than one subordinate to the Board?
> >
> >
> > My concern is that in the long run such a body may lead to excluding
> > community representation from the Board ("since we have a community body
> > already..."). Also, I think that we're lacking a senate, not a government
> > per se.
> >
> > dj
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

James Alexander-3
Honestly while I think that more community governance could be good I worry
that this conversation is going into a direction that is doomed to failure
and distracts us from the REAL issues that people are frustrated about.
Large governing bodies are complicated, difficult to set up and difficult
to administer especially with limited official power and scope. We have had
off and on discussions about them for ages but they aren't particularly
feasible and aren't suddenly more feasible now. They also don't really fix
the problems that people are having I think. There are some relatively
stable facts that I, personally, see though some may disagree with all or
some:


   - The board has a leadership role in the movement and the communities as
   well as the WMF though how that manifests itself differs at times.
   - The WMF serves at the defacto "head" (for lack of a better term) of
   the movement. They are the trademark holders, the server operators, the
   legal stewards, the fundraisers etc. The affiliates and community groups
   all serve immensely important roles but but in the end can not get away
   from the fact that the legal responsibility rests in the WMF. The WMF can
   not get away from that either.
   - The community and the board and the WMF are irretrievably intertwined.
   "The communities" came before the WMF, it "created" the WMF (of course in
   practice Jimmy did but you know what I mean) and it will, almost certainly,
   exist after the WMF. Some level of "separation" from the volunteer
   community as a whole can be good for us all because it allows the
   foundation to help see things that need to change which are harder to
   fix/change when you're deep in the weeds HOWEVER if they separate 'too'
   much from the community as a whole it makes it impossible for them to truly
   effect any change or support the projects in the way they need to because
   they are unable to understand the environment they are working in.

and to some of the specific questions Denny was talking about:


   - The board/WMF 'has' the power to do things like super protect, just
   like it has the power to globally ban someone, to create and shut down
   projects, to sue and be sued.
   - The problem people had with super protect was some combination of how
   it was done, why it was done and how the response was done.
   - I do not see a ton of people saying that it doesn't have that power,
   or even (at some level) that it 'shouldn't have that power (some might
   think that but in the end they usually want the WMF to be responsible for
   things or have other powers that intrinsically require them to have the
   power to do things like that. If you run the servers you need the ability
   to control them etc).


I will fully admit the possibility that my read of this may be biased by my
own thoughts but from what I can tell (both within staff and on this
mailing list/on wiki) the concern is that the WMF/"the board" is getting
too far apart. More community governance or representation is not
necessarily bad but but it will not solve the actual problem and I think
right now it is a distraction. As Dariusz said what is desired here is a
Senate not a new body. Would that help? I don't know, it might, though it
alone is still not really attacking the actual issue. The issue is a lack
of trust in the board and the WMF because of a history of past concerns
(either real or imagined) and, now, what is seen as multiple different
issues coming to a head at once. We have to address those before we talk
about much larger broad reaching questions.

James
User:Jamesofur
User:Jalexander-WMF

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Denny Vrandecic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> David,
>
> thanks for that perspective. I agree that in theory the Foundation has the
> power you describe. But it is the same theory that lead to the
> implementation of Superprotect, and we know how this worked out. I do not
> think that the use of such a power would be accepted.
>
> Or am I wrong?
>
> Denny
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:01 AM, David Goodman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Whatever I may think of some of the recent actions of the board,
> > I think its present role goes well beyond
> > " bring stability and assure that
> > the daily business is done: keep the platform online, deal with legal
> > cases and keep a positive financial balance. "
> >
> > The key roles are to ensure the quality of WP, and
> > " to lead   'in a political manner' "  the open information movement.
> >
> > First, it  it does have the power to deal with a situation  where"Let's
> > say, a specific Wikipedia would be in trouble - maybe there are reports
> > that it was taken over by a small group of POV-pushers. "
> > It has  control of the trademark, and the ability to prevent any
> particular
> > WP from using it. It cannot prevent any aberrant group from using our
> > material while calling itself something else, but it can prevent it
> calling
> > itself Wikipedia.
> > True, this may not be effective in some cases as it used to be, before
> some
> > of the individual language chapters had developed organizational and
> > financial resources of their own, to the extent that some of them could
> > well persist as the major free encyclopedia in their language communities
> > even without the WP name
> >
> > Second, when dealing with the ongoing threats to free information, the
> WMF
> > can and does effectively speak for all those interested as perhaps the
> best
> > known and the strongest voice. This is not something to be regarded
> > lightly.  It can organize the greatest general public indignation that
> any
> > one organization can, and it can coordinate and act asa center for the
> work
> > of others. Much as all languages in the world need a good free
> > encyclopedia, all the people in the world need this freedom even more.
> >
> > On the other hand, it is not needed financially--many other groups in the
> > movement can successfully raise sufficient money to keep the whole
> > operation going, if not to maintain the present number of programers
> > working on ancillary projects
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent
> > the
> > > > communities than one subordinate to the Board?
> > >
> > >
> > > My concern is that in the long run such a body may lead to excluding
> > > community representation from the Board ("since we have a community
> body
> > > already..."). Also, I think that we're lacking a senate, not a
> government
> > > per se.
> > >
> > > dj
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Goodman
> >
> > DGG at the enWP
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Denny Vrandecic-6
Denny, Dariusz: May you take a look the talk page [1], see the flow of
concerns and ideas in relation to the proposal and comment
specifically what you think it could work and what you think it
couldn't.

Besides that, I created two subpages which deal separately with
Representation and diversity [2] and Scope [3], so we could be more
focused on those issues, as they turned out to be the most discussed
ones. (If anyone sees the need for any other discussion topic, let
them create a separate page, as well.)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact/Representation_and_diversity
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact/Scope


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Denny Vrandecic
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> No, I think the questions of community representation on the Board and the
> creation of an independent body able to represent the communities are
> orthogonal. I do not see anyone suggesting that the Board should not have
> community representatives.
>
> But I see the need for a body representing the communities that does not
> derive its power from the Board, but from the communities directly.
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent the
>> > communities than one subordinate to the Board?
>>
>>
>> My concern is that in the long run such a body may lead to excluding
>> community representation from the Board ("since we have a community body
>> already..."). Also, I think that we're lacking a senate, not a government
>> per se.
>>
>> dj
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Milos

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>