Dear all,
This is a long due reflection on where we are, and where we are going as
an organization. I have two main topics. The first is our internal
governance, and the second is how we relate to the rest of the world.
What ties these two topics together? We should engage others to take
the lead in this project. If we do, CZ can grow not just at a modestly
accelerating rate as it has been, but explosively. I KNOW this. And I
am very sure that we can make it happen this year.
So I will make it my top priority to get the things I describe below
done next week, or even within the next few days. So, this is
important!
=============
I. Governance
Basically, we have three main governance bodies: the Executive
Committee, the Editorial Council, and the Constabulary. In addition,
there are various persons who have specific assigned responsibilities
within the project, in addition to me. They are, theoretically anyway,
answerable to the aforementioned bodies. By the way, these *are not*
completely listed on http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Personnel -- if
you already have some special assignment and you're *not* on the list,
won't you please add yourself? (Anthony, Gareth, Sorin, Lee, Robert,
your roles aren't included there, but they should be.)
The problem is that, with some excellent and notable exceptions, most of
the forward progress made in project policy occurs when I propose (or
organize) something, or when something is proposed in the forums, and
then I get behind it. This is emphatically not how it should work. My
hope was always that people would make use of the Editorial Council to
make editorial policy and process proposals, the Constabulary to make
community behavior proposals, and so forth, and that matters could
proceed largely independently of me in that way. But, clearly, most
people do not feel motivated or (more precisely put) empowered enough to
get motivated to make really practical proposals. (But complaining and
debating--well, people predictably love to do that.)
Now, I've known about this problem for a long time, and this is why I
have pretty regularly called for leaders to step up--with only limited
success. I admit that that's my fault to some extent, as I haven't
followed through on some offers.
Anyway, this is why, last month, I circulated a survey about what you're
willing to do. I was (still am) getting ready to ask for volunteers for
leadership roles based on the quantity of volunteers available. (About
50 responded: any more takers? See the attached.)
This leads to the next step:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Proposed_Leadership_Roles
I've left the page open for your own ideas about how what roles we
should create. I'll fill it in with my ideas later but I wish you would
get to work on it. I want to put together this list, with "job
descriptions," over the next few days. Then we'll figure out what to do
with the list, SOON, and how to get people into those "jobs," SOON. I
intend to make nominations to editorial-related jobs, with the advice of
the Executive Committee, to the Editorial Council (that is their area of
authority).
In addition, I want to encourage everyone with bright and *actionable*
proposals, about absolutely anything, to add them to this page:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Proposals (kindly started by Robert
King at my request, and the rules/structure of which should be developed
by everyone--editors in particular should boldly weigh in, as they too
infrequently do! I'll certainly weigh in, but why not get started?)
One of the roles that I think we should create is a person who will
actively guide that page, and make sure that proposals go to the right
CZ bodies and persons, that they're properly developed, and so forth. I
*don't* want to create a complicated workflow (heavens forfend). I *do*
want to create a single page that people know they can add to, to get
their practical proposals seriously considered. And I want to make sure
that we set up an effective, efficient process to keep the proposals
moving steadily and actually implemented (if they enjoy the proper
support). This can and should happen largely independently of me. Now,
don't get me wrong; as Editor-in-Chief, I am not going to give up my
central role in reviewing and amending proposals as necessary. But I
want people to have a way that *they can understand* will result in
real, positive change to the project. The way will no longer be: Larry
gets behind it and makes it happen.
I know I sometimes say that such-and-such is a high priority, and then I
drop the ball, because I get distracted by everything else that's going
on. Well you know...this above proposal actually takes the weight off
my shoulders (and puts it on yours). For that reason, actually
implementing the above governance changes will be, I promise, something
I have made huge inroads on if not completed by the end of this coming
week. I will try hard to do lots of work on it on Monday and Tuesday.
Comments welcome on the forum.
================================
II. A call for real partnerships
We had a great couple of days here at Eastern Michigan University, and
this experience gave me the following idea.
I am going to make an announcement directed at potential partners. It
will be "20 [whatever] ideas about how organizations globally can come
together to make a Citizendium revolution; or, how to partner with the
most exciting new knowledge project online."
Here are some of the ideas I will get out there, and encourage you to
get out there. More ideas (propose them on the forum) welcome.
* University deans/administration: please sign this declaration (to be
written and supplied) in which you officially encourage (or even
require) your departmental tenure and advancement committees to give
credit for significant amounts of CZ editor work (such as number of
articles approved, or number of hours worked on articles within a
person's specialization).
* University leadership at all levels: officially encourage work on CZ
by posting announcements to faculty and students (especially grad
students).
* University instructors: join Eduzendium. (Elaborated elsewhere of
course.)
* Professional organizations: encourage your members to work on CZ.
Pass a resolution of support. Send us a letter of support.
* Philanthropists/foundations: give generously to CZ. (We'll list
specific things that we need, and how much they cost.) This is a
*tremendous* bang for the buck. After all, CZ, one of the
highest-profile new non-profit information projects online, has gotten
to where it is on hardly any money at all. Imagine what we could do
with just $250,000 per year--and for serious philanthropists looking at
a serious project like CZ, that's chicken feed.
* Grantwriters/fundraisers: let us give you some basic material about
us. You use and develop that, perhaps with other volunteer
grantwriters/fundraisers, in soliciting the funds that must be available
to us (but which I haven't had time to chase down myself).
* Software companies with interest in wikis: offer to take the lead in
developing a new version of MediaWiki that is suited to CZ and the many
new projects that would get started using our model, if it were
available in an out-of-the-box fashion. You get the cachet of being our
technology provider and also (perhaps) the consultant of choice in
setting up new CZ-type wikis.
* Technical companies: have your sysadmin staff learn how a serious,
growing wiki like CZ is run, by assigning someone to manage the
technical end of the wiki, and to develop our system resources.
* Hosting companies: host CZ for free. We'll credit you on every page,
of course. We have five servers now but pay for three.
* Reference publishers: interested in new business models and online
collaboration? Consider allowing CZ to be the official venue through
which you develop your content publicly, and release it to the world.
(I'd elaborate. The ideas here are exciting and we have had significant
interest from one of the top academic reference publishers in the
world.)
* Owners of out-of-print resources: why let your knowledge resource go
to waste if you're not making any money from it? Donate it to CZ.
* Owners of "dead" knowledge wikis: why don't you consider folding in
your content to CZ?
* Thought leaders: offer to join our Honorary Board.
* PR firms: we could use pro bono PR representation, which we had at one
time (43PR) and which we now miss. :-)
* Law firms/legal institutes: as we develop, we need pro bono legal
advice on a host of issues.
* Prominent institutions (universities, professional organizations,
government agencies, thinktanks, etc.) of all sorts: give us your
*public* endorsement. Send us a PDF letter that we can upload.
(Provide a place where it will be placed.)
* Prominent professors and professionals of all sorts: give us your
endorsement as well. (Provide a place where it can be uploaded/address
where it can be sent, and upload to the wiki the many that we have
already received.)
* Experts of all sorts: sign a petition that recommends that people in
your field contribute to CZ.
Other such ideas? Add them here:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Become_a_partner
What do all these ideas have in common? They are things that other
organizations and people can do out, of their own initiative, that we
directly benefit from, and which basically do not cost us *very*
significant effort to organize. Or, if these things do require effort
on our part, it's a no brainer that it's worth it and we can expect that
people will be excited about expending the effort. In short, this is
how to operationalize the oft-heard refrain that we should have more
"partners." Sure we should, but I want to have partners that actually
do specific things. I am not interested in hearing from people (as I
often do) who are basically intrigued that we share common goals, but at
bottom have no interest in or ideas about working together in a real,
significant way.
The idea is that we circulate this document around to major
universities, publishers, thought leaders, etc., and see what comes of
it.
Please comment on this on the forums, if you'd like. Volunteers to help
with any of this would be most welcome, too.
--Larry
--- Begin Message ---
Dear all,
Are you (or do you plan to become) an active contributor to CZ? Then,
please, quickly answer two questions for me (offlist!).
These questions will help us to determine how large of a set of
"leadership
and governance" positions we can plan for. There's no point to planning
a
lot of initiatives that will each be understaffed.
In the following, I don't want your promises (too easily broken) or your
wishes (too easily unfulfilled). Rather, I want your hard-nosed,
realistic
predictions about yourself, preferably based on past experience and
consideration of current circumstances. You aren't *committing*
yourself to
jobs, here, you're expressing your predictions! Of course, I hope your
predictions are very positive. :-)
I'm trying to quantify how much responsibility we are able to take on,
and
of what sort. So, SUPPOSE THAT ALL YOUR CZ COMMITMENTS WERE WIPED
CLEAN.
Imagine you are no longer in any official positions other than author
and/or
editor (which might actually be the case!).
QUESTION 1. If you are willing *and able* to take on several roles in
CZ,
please indicate how many. Let's say, up to four. These might include
Editorial Council member, constable, initiative staffers & leaders, etc.
(You'll get a chance to indicate what type of role next.)
If your answer to Question 1 is zero, then there's no need to reply to
this
survey.
QUESTION 2. For the following, choose as many of A-D as apply, or else
E if
none apply. Would you have time and willingness to serve...
A. in rank-and-file positions on either the Editorial Council or the
Constabulary? These are fairly low time commitments, but they *are*
commitments.
B. in main *leadership* positions, such as in Editorial Council or
Constabulary leadership, on the (to be created) Judicial Board, or the
Executive Committee? These would presumably require more time, though
not
necessarily huge amounts.
C. in rank-and-file special-function group positions, such as (JUST for
example) a recruitment group, approvals management group, a
help-and-simplification group, a fundraising group, etc.? These would
not
necessarily require a lot of time, but they would require some.
D. in special-function *leadership* positions, such as (JUST for
example)
recruitment chief, fundraising lead, operations reporter, etc.? Doing a
good job would require a moderate-to-large amount of time in most cases.
Thanks in advance!
--Larry
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
