On 8 May 2014 21:48, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > It's good to see the role of the WMUK committees being focused on - thank > you Michael for starting this. > > However, I think it's a real shame that the committees are becoming much > more advisory than they were supposed to be when they were originally > envisaged and created just a few years ago. The charter here basically > gives the committee no powers whatsoever. Compare it with the proposal I > posted in 2012 at: > https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/General_Committee_Charter > which was aimed at giving the committees some amount of delegated power to > decide what would or wouldn't happen.
I believe the general understanding of https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Articles_of_Association/2013_EGM_revision#Delegation_of_Directors'_powers is that "1. Committees are sub-committees of the Wikimedia UK Board" means that those committees would consist entirely of trustees. Instead, now we're seeing committees that may or may not be able to give > input to staff members (depending on whether staff members decide if they > want to consult the committees or not). The power balance is very much on > the side of the staff, who hold individual viewpoints (which are generally > very good and worth listening to - but they are individual viewpoints) > rather than viewpoints balanced across a spectrum of views (which is what a > committee can provide). It's also worth remembering that the staff were > hired to support the community rather than the other way around... > "Power balance"? Removing parentheses, that sentence reads "The power balance is very much on the side of the staff, who hold individual viewpoints rather than viewpoints balanced across a spectrum of views." With the following sentence, I do wonder what this is driving at. Of course all committee members are going to advocate for particular perspectives, which is why there has to be a chair. With the first sentence, this is apparently about delegated powers to manage staff? My experience of a couple of the committees would suggest, on the basis of particular instances: (1) There can be an issue about committee members laying down the law (Mike, you are guilty of that); (2) There can be an issue with staff role and actions; (3) There can be an issue if participants disregard the role of chair. But I don't think any of these is particularly a charter issue. The things I can bring to mind are at the level of what I would call "savoir faire". > > If the priorities could be flipped here, and the committees are given the > direct ability to give recommendations to the WMUK board or to make some > level of budget decisions, then I think it's useful to continue to have the > committees. If not, then I would ask why the committees exist here... > > Well, they can do the first, and they are not going to be able to do the second (budget) thing directly, as I understand the status quo: they are clearly able to influence discussion of budgetary matters. The point would be to have a layer of effective discussion between the strategic focus of the Board, and the detailed implementation by the office and contractors. I think it would be a mistake to define the "clearing-house" function out of existence. Charles
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
