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).

[Eva Destruction]

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses"): that WP does need change, and some kind of council is a good idea, but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas). Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.

This is how the community damns itself. Regardless of the value in an argument, too often more consideration is given to who is making the argument. I've done it before, too. Someone I consider a complete toolbox makes a good point, and my first instinct is to dismiss it. Luckily, I'm not a complete knob, so I read it again objectively, then I support it.

Shankbone knows this. As does Ottava and some others. I often agree with people I generally have little to no respect for. Where the argument or proposal or opinion comes from is of little relevance when your focus is on what's best for the project.

You don't need to convince me of that (hell, I'm the one up there agreeing with SV). A council produced by elections and a council appointed by Jimbo and Arbcom would probably produce the exact same agenda – and could possibly have the exact same members – but proposals coming from the latter will be slated as "products of the cabal", and the same proposals from the former as "refreshing and necessary insights". It's wrong, it's a pit Wikipedia dug for itself three years ago and only has itself to blame, it's a symptom of a fucked-up system, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

FWIW, if I were constituting a Provisional Government of Wikipedia council, my initial configuration would be:

Total of 24 members;
8 hand-picked (by whom doesn't actually matter – I'd suggest Jimbo or the WMF trustees nominate 2, Arbcom nominates 2, Raul and Sandy nominate 1, the Counter Vandalism and Bot Approval people each nominate 1 – I'd quite like to see Somey and Selina nominate one person as well, to give a genuine outside view, but I doubt that would happen);
8 elected;
8 "anyone who's interested put your names in the hat" and selected by lottery.

The element of appointment would allow people who really should be there but would never win an election; the elective aspect would give it some kind of legitimacy without swamping it in populism; the lottery aspect would allow ordinary people without the "recognition factor" to win an election to get onto the committee, and prevent it being the same squeakiest wheels again and again.

Of course, no way on earth this will happen.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Tue 14th July 2009, 7:15pm