On 18 June 2010 08:00, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Michael Snow <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 6/17/2010 5:35 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: >>> OK, so I guess my question is (and we talked about this on IRC too) -- >>> who has the power or the ability -- or who *should*, in a perfect >>> world -- create such a committee? We don't have much precedent for >>> this. There were concerns over who or what body can create >>> governance/oversight structures, particularly if this isn't really >>> just a Foundation issue. >>> >> I suppose the board could create the committee, if it's not clear who >> else might have the authority. Or perhaps better, the board could >> authorize its creation. I think the board is a bit reluctant to jump in, >> partly for the reason Sue mentioned that overseeing Wikimania is not >> really a board-level issue (it's primarily operational rather than >> strategic), but also because the board is not well placed to fill and >> maintain committees like this. When it becomes a situation of appointing >> people none of us really knows, or feeling that there are probably >> people we're not aware who ought to be recruited to a committee like >> this, it's pretty uncomfortable to have that responsibility. But if we >> authorized the committee and then let the staff and experienced >> Wikimania volunteers review applications or expressions of interest to >> join the committee, that might work out. That's kind of the direction >> things have moved in any case. Some of the early committees that still >> function have evolved to a place outside the board's immediate activity, >> and the current work of the governance committee is focused more on >> structures needed to organize the board's own functions. >> >> --Michael Snow > > Yes, authorization seems right. I wouldn't really expect that the > Board actually fill such a committee or even necessarily ask for > direct reports. The question that came up in IRC though was where > would such a committee derive its authority from (assuming it had any > particular authority). Perhaps the answer for this is "it doesn't" and > simply fills a communication and reporting role that is currently > lacking. Or perhaps (my ideal scenario) we come up with a way where > the interested community grants it authority by building the > structure, filling the seats, etc., and that is generally recognized. > > I'm interested in this case specifically of course, but I also am > wondering more generally what the current state of affairs is for > forming any sort of operational, community-driven committee. Of course > we're good at forming wikiprojects to do things that need doing, but > for areas that also require overlap with things that the office works > on, it seems tricky. > > Re: scheduling a time at wikimania for discussing this potential > glorious wikimania committee: yes, let's. I wanted to have a reprise > of the Future of Wikimania discussion from last year, anyway. How > about Sunday? I'll volunteer to check with the 2011 team and other > interested parties and schedule a time. This overlaps with Manuel's > panel, too, but I think we need a dedicated time maybe. Stay tuned! > > -- phoebe > > p.s. if we get both James Owen AND James Forrester involved it will be > unstoppable. Powered by James^2.
Pah. To disambiguate between the two of us, I will allow people to refer to me as "God-Prince James", per Jimmy. ;-) James. No, the other one. -- James D. Forrester [email protected] | [email protected] [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
