Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[Eva Destruction]

Surprised this hasn't already been mentioned here, especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members. While I'm more than willing to be pleasantly surprised, this looks like a very peculiar idea to me. (My thoughts on the matter are here).

[Somey]

Well, you can't please everyone, particularly if you're trying to actually do something useful in an environment full of people who can only be pleased by being allowed to directly participate in everything that happens.

I mean, the whole point is to get the curmudgeons and activist-types together and make suggestions, right? The only suggestion that would come from the anyone else among the WP-cult crowd would just be the usual "go away and let us do whatever the f*** we want and stop caring about who we piss off in the process" sort of thing.

The last thing you'd want to do is have the list of invitees determined by a popularity contest, because being popular on WP means not being a curmudgeon or activist. I'm not saying this is a worthwhile idea, but these people calling for the group to be "elected by the community" are probably just pissed that they themselves weren't invited in the first place.

[Eva Destruction]

The last thing you'd want to do is have the list of invitees determined by a popularity contest, because being popular on WP means not being a curmudgeon or activist. I'm not saying this is a worthwhile idea, but these people calling for the group to be "elected by the community" are probably just pissed that they themselves weren't invited in the first place.

For myself, if they'd asked me I'd have declined (and I'd be shocked if Slim, the noisiest anti at present, wasn't invited). I don't see the problem so much being the "unelected" side, as the complete confusion as to what this group is actually going to do. Nobody so far has actually said what the purpose of this group is (the current statement of purpose seems to boil down to "bitch about things but with no powers to do anything about them"); as I've already said, this looks to me like an attempt to shut Jimmy Wales's noisier critics up by giving them posts on the metaphorical payroll. As far as I'm concerned, "the community can shut down the "think tank" aspects […] but it can't prevent ArbCom from coming to the people in the group for advice without shutting down ArbCom itself" sums up the "fuck you, if you don't like this we'll just take it to IRC and do it anyway" mentality quite nicely. The problem is, any legitimate criticism coming from this group's members will be tainted by having come from a source with no legitimacy (even in Wikipedia's own dubious definition of 'consensus'), while any shitty ideas coming from it will be treated with a seriousness they don't deserve, by virtue of having come from Jimbo's private corps of Illuminati.

I did not see this coming.

[Kelly Martin]

I did not see this coming.

Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

[Cla68]

I did not see this coming.

Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

Oh for crying out loud. Thanks SV, I hope the view is nice from the high horse you're riding on. Afraid that you're losing all hope of every asserting any control in Wikipedia again?

The thing you and everyone else needs to remember is that ArbCom is currently the only thing in Wikipedia resembling any kind of formal governance body, so if they take the initiative to try to get something going to improve Wikipedia's governance, it should be supported. This council may not have any impact since it doesn't have any formal authority, but Kirill and the others who proposed it probably intended it that way in order to try to escape any accusations of exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, however, someone elected to make such accusation anyway.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[LessHorrid vanU]

I did not see this coming.

Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

Oh for crying out loud. Thanks SV, I hope the view is nice from the high horse you're riding on. Afraid that you're losing all hope of every asserting any control in Wikipedia again?

The thing you and everyone else needs to remember is that ArbCom is currently the only thing in Wikipedia resembling any kind of formal governance body, so if they take the initiative to try to get something going to improve Wikipedia's governance, it should be supported. This council may not have any impact since it doesn't have any formal authority, but Kirill and the others who proposed it probably intended it that way in order to try to escape any accusations of exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, however, someone elected to make such accusation anyway.

As I said in my comment to Kirill (I was observing WP etiquette in not referring to SV by name, but I trust it was clear) the most vocal opposition is coming from an editor who used to be part of an off Wiki but sanctioned mailing list who used it to influence not only policy but the day to day operation of the projects management.