On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thus, not the senate, but assembly is the right form of our
> organization: assembly which would select *paid* Board members.
> Besides the load, I want Board members to be accountable to
> Wikimedians, not to the for-profit or non-profit entities which give
> them money.
I am not, and have not been employed by any Wikimedia organization.
> Yes, it's scary to be accountable to people you lead. I completely
> understand that.
I have no idea where you get this idea from in my letter. I am not scared
to be accountable to people I lead, and I hope I have stated my readiness
in this department clearly.
> The costs of having 100 people assembly won't be significant at all.
> First of all, the most of the people in such large body would be
> anyways mostly consisted of those going to Wikimedia Conference and
> Wikimania. If you really care about money, scale the initial body to
> 40-50 and ask all chapters that sending three or more people to those
> conferences to contribute expenses for one to such body. If you put
> that way, the costs could rise up to ~5%, if they raise at all.
If you envisage a large, 100 people assembly during Wikimania or Wikimedia
Conference, then indeed it is possible to arrange without significant
additional cost. However, I believe this is basically an entirely different
idea than the one Denny described (or at least the one I understood we're
discussing). An assembly would be a body who would voice their opinion only
once a year in practice, most likely. I'm not sure what exactly would it
do, but surely it would be difficult for it to agree/vote on situations
happening within a span of weeks, rather than months.
> So, please, reconsider your ideas on the line: from speaking about bad
> bureaucracy, while in fact increasing inefficient one -- to thinking
> about efficient, democratically accountable bureaucracy, with
> everybody content by its construction.
I am not convinced if a body of 100 people meeting once a year is an
efficient way to reduce bureaucracy. Of course views may differ.
> Said everything above, I have to express that I am pissed off by the
> fact that the Board members are constructive as long as they are under
> high level of pressure. Whenever you feel a bit more empowered, I hear
> just the excuses I've been listening for a decade.
I am saddened you have this perception.
> Please, let us know how do you want to talk with us in the way that we
> see that the communication is constructive.
That is a good topic for a separate thread! Currently, the list we use is
limited to 1500 English speakers.
An idea that I have been trying to champion for a while was also
community-liaisons: community elected people whose responsibility is
day-to-day communication with the WMF and back. This would not be a
decisive role, and it is independent from whether we have a senate or
assembly or not, but could at least increase the reach of communication and
decision making in some areas.
Also, discourse is a platform that perhaps will take off at some point.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com