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
But I see the need for a body representing the
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?
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
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
>> My impression is therefore that some sort of a preparatory work is needed
>> to avoid these two traps. Ideally, there would be a drafting
On 2016-01-13 16:32, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Milos Rancic
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
internal discussions. My
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Milos Rancic 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
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Milos Rancic 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:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
> 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
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
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
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
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:
I want to give a small background
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
Mail list logo