On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thus, not the senate, but assembly is the right form of our > organization: assembly which would select *paid* Board members. > Besides the load, I want Board members to be accountable to > Wikimedians, not to the for-profit or non-profit entities which give > them money. > I am not, and have not been employed by any Wikimedia organization. > > Yes, it's scary to be accountable to people you lead. I completely > understand that. > I have no idea where you get this idea from in my letter. I am not scared to be accountable to people I lead, and I hope I have stated my readiness in this department clearly. > > The costs of having 100 people assembly won't be significant at all. > First of all, the most of the people in such large body would be > anyways mostly consisted of those going to Wikimedia Conference and > Wikimania. If you really care about money, scale the initial body to > 40-50 and ask all chapters that sending three or more people to those > conferences to contribute expenses for one to such body. If you put > that way, the costs could rise up to ~5%, if they raise at all. > If you envisage a large, 100 people assembly during Wikimania or Wikimedia Conference, then indeed it is possible to arrange without significant additional cost. However, I believe this is basically an entirely different idea than the one Denny described (or at least the one I understood we're discussing). An assembly would be a body who would voice their opinion only once a year in practice, most likely. I'm not sure what exactly would it do, but surely it would be difficult for it to agree/vote on situations happening within a span of weeks, rather than months. > > So, please, reconsider your ideas on the line: from speaking about bad > bureaucracy, while in fact increasing inefficient one -- to thinking > about efficient, democratically accountable bureaucracy, with > everybody content by its construction. > I am not convinced if a body of 100 people meeting once a year is an efficient way to reduce bureaucracy. Of course views may differ. > > Said everything above, I have to express that I am pissed off by the > fact that the Board members are constructive as long as they are under > high level of pressure. Whenever you feel a bit more empowered, I hear > just the excuses I've been listening for a decade. > I am saddened you have this perception. https://xkcd.com/552/ > > Please, let us know how do you want to talk with us in the way that we > see that the communication is constructive. That is a good topic for a separate thread! Currently, the list we use is limited to 1500 English speakers. An idea that I have been trying to champion for a while was also community-liaisons: community elected people whose responsibility is day-to-day communication with the WMF and back. This would not be a decisive role, and it is independent from whether we have a senate or assembly or not, but could at least increase the reach of communication and decision making in some areas. Also, discourse is a platform that perhaps will take off at some point. dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
