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).

[Nerd]

Heh. Let's hope they all quit.

I did not see this coming.

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

You have got to be kidding me.

This post has been edited by Nerd: Sat 11th July 2009, 10:39pm

[everyking]

Heh. Let's hope they all quit.

I did not see this coming.

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

You have got to be kidding me.

Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

[Orderinchaos]

Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

The most sound reason to reject the proposal in my view is the calibre of its selectors (en masse, not individually). I sort of operate from the general principle that if a body is performing its core duties effectively, it might then be trusted with other duties. The 2009 ArbCom is performing its core duties so poorly that it should focus on getting those right first without moving onto irrelevant sidetracks which will probably take their attention even further off the task. It's been my observation that they tend to "gloss over" cases, fail to read the evidence pages properly or properly investigate leads and are too willing to hit the nuclear option, and have driven several good apolitical editors off the project this way - broadly speaking previous ArbComs did an acceptable job at these things but too slowly and too conservatively for the community's liking.

There are plenty of frustrated editors and admins with serious questions about the current ArbCom's competency who'd like to see the decks cleared. However, that would likely not fix the problem as you'd have to replace them with other people, and the most capable volunteers we have are with some notable exceptions either gone, burnt out or not interested.

The process set up reminds me of a Sam Goldwyn quote: "I don't want to be surrounded by "yes men". I want people who'll disagree with me, even if it costs them their jobs." Creating a body which is then answerable only to it has slightly Tsarist-Russia connotations to me, although the whole notion of ArbCom having any real world parallel or significance is quite funny. That Colbert clip making fun of their names pretty much said where it was at

Personally I think a *proper* advisory council would go well beyond Wikimedians and extend to universities and business and such things, so that we don't end up in a self-reinforcing circle of opinions of increasing irrelevance to the real world, but I could see the anarchists and conservatives in the Wikipedia community lining up to howl that one down and insist it was a takeover by Big Business of the people's enterprise or somesuch.

This post has been edited by Orderinchaos: Sun 12th July 2009, 9:52am

[LessHorrid vanU]

Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

The most sound reason to reject the proposal in my view is the calibre of its selectors (en masse, not individually). I sort of operate from the general principle that if a body is performing its core duties effectively, it might then be trusted with other duties. The 2009 ArbCom is performing its core duties so poorly that it should focus on getting those right first without moving onto irrelevant sidetracks which will probably take their attention even further off the task. It's been my observation that they tend to "gloss over" cases, fail to read the evidence pages properly or properly investigate leads and are too willing to hit the nuclear option, and have driven several good apolitical editors off the project this way - broadly speaking previous ArbComs did an acceptable job at these things but too slowly and too conservatively for the community's liking.

There are plenty of frustrated editors and admins with serious questions about the current ArbCom's competency who'd like to see the decks cleared. However, that would likely not fix the problem as you'd have to replace them with other people, and the most capable volunteers we have are with some notable exceptions either gone, burnt out or not interested.

The process set up reminds me of a Sam Goldwyn quote: "I don't want to be surrounded by "yes men". I want people who'll disagree with me, even if it costs them their jobs." Creating a body which is then answerable only to it has slightly Tsarist-Russia connotations to me, although the whole notion of ArbCom having any real world parallel or significance is quite funny. That Colbert clip making fun of their names pretty much said where it was at

Personally I think a *proper* advisory council would go well beyond Wikimedians and extend to universities and business and such things, so that we don't end up in a self-reinforcing circle of opinions of increasing irrelevance to the real world, but I could see the anarchists and conservatives in the Wikipedia community lining up to howl that one down and insist it was a takeover by Big Business of the people's enterprise or somesuch.

My eyes simply glazed over as soon as I read your second sentence; they then dropped from my skull when I read the second paragraph... You appear to be saying that SlimVirgin and Mattisse - surprising that they are on the same side in this one - are representative of the admins and editors of WP in decrying the current ArbCom, and that FT2 and Sam Blacketeer were the stars in the firmament of WP and are sorely missed for their integrity and incisive guidance (Deskanna being the exception, but then they did carry on in a differing capacity).

Are you certain you are posting on the correct website?

[Orderinchaos]

My eyes simply glazed over as soon as I read your second sentence; they then dropped from my skull when I read the second paragraph... You appear to be saying that SlimVirgin and Mattisse - surprising that they are on the same side in this one - are representative of the admins and editors of WP in decrying the current ArbCom, and that FT2 and Sam Blacketeer were the stars in the firmament of WP and are sorely missed for their integrity and incisive guidance (Deskanna being the exception, but then they did carry on in a differing capacity).

Are you certain you are posting on the correct website?

Firstly I've never spoken to SV or Mattisse... I've heard from and chatted with a broad range of people with similar and increasingly converging opinions about the present ArbCom over the months. The fact that as you say two individuals who normally can't see eye to eye are agreeing is merely part of a bigger thing.

Secondly I said "acceptable". One wouldn't have to look far on the RfCs to find an essay length piece I wrote re FT2. I am saying *in general* they had the skills or competencies to do the job and demonstrated that - whether they used them wisely is another matter and I certainly had plenty of cause to disagree with the way 2007 and 2008 ArbComs did things. I just happen to find the present one far more objectionable.