Yes, but just on a second though: The committee is a good idea as it will advise, and discuss, but how is this committee *actin*g? Otherwise you need a committee to oversee the committee. You need someone who knows what to do when. Acting. That needs one or two people, not necessarily a committee. I am not sure if the committee will get things done, which is what is required.
Thanks M On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) < [email protected]> wrote: > I do think it is a good idea > > as each Wikimania we have cope with things in similar situation > though committee is not necessary > but we should have better knowledge management and transfer mechanism > > anyway if really such committee will start > I would like to be part of it > > Jerry~雨雨 > Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan, ARAD > User:Yuyu | zh.wikipedia | Wikimedia HK > ChapCom, WMF | ComCom, WMF > Blogger | http://jeromyu.wordpress.com > MSN: [email protected] > also Jeromyu on twitter, plurk and most of places > > Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 > Laudamus quae laudentur > Qui mollis et dissolutus est in opere suo frater est sua opera dissipantis > Non clamatis hostilia, numquam esse vos accusatoribus > > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:28, James Forrester <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
