Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[Mackan]

I think the heart of the problem is that the Council is set up to advise ArbCom on project governance, without ever having decided that project governance is what ArbCom is for. I suppose that sounds obvious, but the point is that people aren't so much objecting to the council itself as they are to what it suggests about an increased role of ArbCom.

How else do you create this kind of panel? I also see an elephant in the room: when was it really decided that the community is responsible for governance anyway, aside from developing content? The reasons for using a community to develop content seem much stronger.

I get the feeling those behind this are partly saying oops, maybe when Jimbo created the ArbCom to resolve disputes, he should have also created a second group to head up project governance. Now we only have the first, while Jimbo's chance to establish the second in similar fashion has passed. So maybe we can just expand one into the other? Of course, ArbCom has always done some governance through its use of principles.

I might support this if I had some idea about the problems that this group is intended to solve. I gather one idea is that elevating a smart group of people to promote ideas that might otherwise have 50-75% support, is better than not having them do that. The problem is that the group should then really be counseling the community, or the bureaucrats, not ArbCom, to have this effect. But how do you do that if the community didn't ask for it, and the real power structures don't want to get involved?

Given the doubtfulness that the council will make the community itself any more organized, I presume its purpose is more to provide views separate from the community, that ArbCom has suggested it intends to give elevated consideration. Functionally, this gives the ArbCom one more place it can appeal for support if it wants to make a decision. Of course, the community could still reject ArbCom's actions, which would seem likelier the clearer it was that the council is an arm of ArbCom itself; perhaps that is where you notice some of the likeliest agitators are on the council.

I suppose ArbCom may be smartest to separate this council as far as it can from itself, assuming ArbCom has no interest in influencing it. What they seem to really want is a group, any group, to contrast with the general community. I'm just not sure how that addresses project governance, unless they just want to cede that role to ArbCom. Or at a much more basic level, maybe ArbCom only wants better advice in its role to distill "community principles." Surely that isn't all, though it's always been a bit curious how ArbCom was supposed to do this.

[One]

You do know that the WR mods have determined it is highly unlikely these two are the same as they are in very different places geographically, right?

Like Bassettcat and Mantanmoreland? What about Poetlister and guy?

Honestly, I don't suspect this is Ottava (or even care), but I take "highly unlikely" with salt and MSG.

I do. In my experience, companies and nonprofits have governance structures that involve the authority to make decisions, making them entirely unlike Wikipedia.

Lord, true that.

This post has been edited by One: Mon 13th July 2009, 8:53pm

[everyking]

Just a point of order: does anyone on Wikipedia have any experience in running a company or a nonprofit organization? I have never seen such a tragically mismanaged entity as this site. I can understand that many of the people who rise to the top on Wikipedia are either kids who are still in school or slacker adults who are sneaking in edits when the boss isn't looking. But in the absence of genuine managers, we will always wind up with this kind of shit. The one reason Wikipedia is constantly imploding with tiresome drama like this is the thorough lack of individuals who have any hands-on experience in building and maintaining a working organization.

Jayjg is in his 40s and works "in management"

I know an admin who was assistant manger of a Foot Locker once....

I work in restaurant management. Does that count?

Surely the council is not going to just coolly proceed with business amidst the community outcry? The community has spoken and its voice is unambigious in its opposition. How can you justify ignoring that?

I have no problem doing this. I think the whole controversy is ridiculous. People opposing a think-tank. It's just funny.

Shit needs to change. It's been pounded for years, but nothing has changed... not for the better anyway. People are complaining endlessly, throwing out straw mans (see Prodego here), and for what? Some people hate ArbCom and think their a bunch of incompetent morons. Well, check the list of members of the think-tank. Are we all AC supporters? Hell no!

Just a bunch of bad faith, sour grapes and typical whining. Nothing changes on this project because there is always a loud enough group to shut anything down. This situation is no exception. If we fold to the predictable mob, we're just back to being broken and without hope. Fuck that noise. At some point, the protesters have to be left to chanting and marching while whatever they oppose moves forward. Change isn't coming on its own. It has to be forced through.

What's funny is that this group can't even force anything through. We can only suggest changes for the community to approve. Will they approve them? Almost certainly not. See previous paragraph. But it's worth a try. And I'll be damned if I give up on what I think is a brilliant idea because people are bitter, crying sour grapes or bitching about what they don't understand.

Fine, let the record show that you have sided against the community and in favor of the ArbCom. This whole controversy raises the issue: how does the community, when a consensus exists in opposition to an ArbCom decision, force the ArbCom to abrogate that decision?

[A Horse With No Name]

Fine, let the record show that you have sided against the community and in favor of the ArbCom. This whole controversy raises the issue: how does the community, when a consensus exists in opposition to an ArbCom decision, force the ArbCom to abrogate that decision?

What community?

Hey, Everyking, did you ever got your mop back?

[EricBarbour]

Fine, let the record show that you have sided against the community and in favor of the ArbCom. This whole controversy raises the issue: how does the community, when a consensus exists in opposition to an ArbCom decision, force the ArbCom to abrogate that decision?

Community? I don't see a "community" in this RFC, I see a gang of SlimVirgin
and Durova buttsnorkels, plus a motley gang of assorted malcontents, opposing for
assorted reasons (some valid, some not), plus some of WP's worst admins
(Will Beback, Aitias, Sandstein etc.) opposing because Arbcom might make it
more difficult for them to engage in their favorite on-wiki ass-munching....

69 malcontents, passersby and cranks is not the "community", sir.
Get 200-300 people in there. Get more ordinary editors, and fewer of
the reliable drama-generators. Then I'll call it a "community".

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 13th July 2009, 9:23pm

[everyking]

Fine, let the record show that you have sided against the community and in favor of the ArbCom. This whole controversy raises the issue: how does the community, when a consensus exists in opposition to an ArbCom decision, force the ArbCom to abrogate that decision?

Community? I don't see a "community" in this RFC, I see a gang of SlimVirgin
and Durova buttsnorkels, plus a motley gang of assorted malcontents, opposing for
assorted reasons (some valid, some not), plus some of WP's worst admins
(Will Beback, Aitias, Sandstein etc.) opposing because Arbcom might make it
more difficult for them to engage in their favorite on-wiki ass-munching....

69 malcontents, passersby and cranks is not the "community", sir.
Get 200-300 people in there. Get more ordinary editors, and fewer of
the reliable drama-generators. Then I'll call it a "community".

Oh, is this a "silent majority" kind of thing?

[EricBarbour]

In fact, I'm tempted to add a statement of my own......demanding that the
discussion about this advisory committee be completely free of the usual
SlimVirgin and Durova manipulation. Ban those two from any such discussion,
then there will be a better chance of a fair hearing by the "community".

[Sarcasticidealist]

Oh, is this a "silent majority" kind of thing?

I'm not ashamed to admit that I am clearly out of step with the majority of the community on this. The majority of the community is wrong.

[everyking]

In fact, I'm tempted to add a statement of my own......demanding that the
discussion about this advisory committee be completely free of the usual
SlimVirgin and Durova manipulation. Ban those two from any such discussion,
then there will be a better chance of a fair hearing by the "community".

OK, so if we exclude SV and Durova for no good reason, there's still 67 voices against the council and 27 supporting it (with the latter group's numbers inflated through the inclusion of actual council members). These are all people with individual minds, you know.

Oh, is this a "silent majority" kind of thing?

I'm not ashamed to admit that I am clearly out of step with the majority of the community on this. The majority of the community is wrong.

What do you think should happen if you're right and the community is wrong? Whose will should prevail?

[EricBarbour]

OK, so if we exclude SV and Durova for no good reason, there's still 67 voices against the council and 27 supporting it (with the latter group's numbers inflated through the inclusion of actual council members).

And their reliable, well-known supporters. Ironholds, Crum375, KillerChihuahua, etc.....

[Sarcasticidealist]

What do you think should happen if you're right and the community is wrong? Whose will should prevail?

This is Wikipedia: nobody prevails.

[Cla68]

I do. In my experience, companies and nonprofits have governance structures that involve the authority to make decisions, making them entirely unlike Wikipedia.

Lord, true that.

One, I hope the ArbCom has already started discussing what's going to happen next, because you know that someone will eventually take the Council forum to MfD, citing the "consensus at the RfC". What will follow will be another pile-on from the 60 or so editors from the RfC. ArbCom will then have to face a decision as to whether to defy that group and refuse to let the forum be deleted, or bow to it. The ArbCom can choose to defy that group if they want to, because no one can do anything to you because you exist by Jimbo's authority, which he has so far not reliquished.

I'm interested in seeing what will happen if the Committee chooses that course of action, which of course, I hope they do. It's time to take a stand, in my opinion, for the long-term.

[EricBarbour]

This is Wikipedia: nobody prevails.

Beg to differ, sir. SlimVirgin and Durova are prevailing in this RFC, and Arbcom is
looking bad. It, in no way, looks like a "fair vote" or an open-ended discussion.

And given a choice between SV running Wikipedia "governance" (whatever delusional
nonsense that is), and Arbcom running it, I would tend to lean toward letting Arbcom
have a try. Because to date, SlimVirgin has been a disaster.

[Moulton]

ArbCom is well aware that it receives conduct cases that arise from the absence of a functional content dispute resolution process. Any community that is obliged to make community decisions needs a functional conflict resolution process. For reasons unbeknownst to me, WP was originally crafted without any form of conflict resolution. This was partially solved with ArbCom to hear conduct cases. But nothing was done about the underlying problem of devising an orderly process for resolving content disputes.

It makes sense for ArbCom to propose a study intended to recommend a conflict resolution process for content disputes. But after 8 years without a functional decision-making process, the competing factions of WP cannot see their way clear to do what Jimbo should have done when WP was founded.

[Kelly Martin]

The majority of the community is wrong.

The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

[EricBarbour]

The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

And that's another longstanding problem with the present setup.
If MediaWiki was modified, so that logging in takes you to a voting section automatically,
there would be far more participation by ordinary editors. I really don't think it would
be onerous to make such an arrangement, and it would be FAR more democratic than
the present mess.

So far, the powermongers (like, say, the Virgin) have practiced the old security-through-obscurity
game to preserve what little "power" they have. And have gotten away with it.

I posted my comment in the RFC, if nothing else some people will have a giggle.

(oops, the bitch deleted it. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. )

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 13th July 2009, 10:48pm

[trenton]

(oops, the bitch deleted it. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. )

She dissed you man. She dissed you bad. See that "minor edit". That's like giving you the wiki-finger.

[Kelly Martin]

What I find really interesting in reading the comments on the RfC and its talk page is that Wikipedians in general appear to be remarkably stupid people. Does nobody in this entire pit of despair understand the utility of a discussion group or an exploratory committee? It's quite common for bodies corporates to establish a committee and charge it to "investigate options and report". Such a committee has no "authority" to do anything, and yet such committees are both commonplace and essential.

I assume that the main reason for this is that the Wikipedia community, or at least that section of it that participates in "community discussions", is overwhelmingly stocked with teenagers who have no experience with anything other than being bossed around by their parents and their teachers, and have no concept of someone having authority arising from any source other than fiat.

Oh, and in addendum I see that Slimmy is going after Flonight now. Two snakes going at it, that should be good for some lulz.

[everyking]

What I find really interesting in reading the comments on the RfC and its talk page is that Wikipedians in general appear to be remarkably stupid people. Does nobody in this entire pit of despair understand the utility of a discussion group or an exploratory committee? It's quite common for bodies corporates to establish a committee and charge it to "investigate options and report". Such a committee has no "authority" to do anything, and yet such committees are both commonplace and essential.

I assume that the main reason for this is that the Wikipedia community, or at least that section of it that participates in "community discussions", is overwhelmingly stocked with teenagers who have no experience with anything other than being bossed around by their parents and their teachers, and have no concept of someone having authority arising from any source other than fiat.

Oh, and in addendum I see that Slimmy is going after Flonight now. Two snakes going at it, that should be good for some lulz.

Kelly, I hear the ArbCom is now considering applications to join the council...it's not too late to sign up!

[EricBarbour]

(oops, the bitch deleted it. Ha ha ha. Such a sensitive little flower. )

She dissed you man. She dissed you bad. See that "minor edit". That's like giving you the wiki-finger.

Ooohhh! Me so scared!!!

Sometimes I wonder if she's another piece of AI software. Her responses are so
amazingly predictable and self-injurious.