Anonymous user
Forum:Organizational structure: Difference between revisions
m
fix
imported>Benjozork (→Draft) |
imported>Kudu m (fix) |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 63:
::::I support the comment of eikes. Elections every 6 months should be fine, but a member should be able to stay in the council 6 months, and wait another 6 months to subscribe for elections. -[[User:Benjozork|Benjozork]] ([[User talk:Benjozork|talk]]) 21:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{oppose}} I think the power structure should actually be flipped. If the goal of the community council is to represent the community as a whole, it should be the body that gets the most power (i.e. a voting, representative body) over the project leaders (a single or two individuals that doesn't necessarily represent the whole community in all cases). The community council should appoint the leaders and the council should be elected at most-frequently once per year by the community. I would prefer it be elected every two years. I think there should be a procedure for recall of a council member if they are harming the community or something, but I don't see a need for six month elections, that's absurd in my opinion based on our size and current needs. Back to my power point, the leaders could easily abuse that power of overturning a council decision wherever they wanted; them doing so (and I'm not saying they would, I would trust Kudu and Dusti with my first born child) would make the community council useless and powerless. The council should be able to overturn their decisions over a majority (or two-thirds, even) vote. I've been in situations before with a similar system '''in theory''', but it ended up being a complete bureaucracy with one individual making all of the decisions leaving the rest of us powerless. I appreciate your consideration of my above points, -- <font color="blue"><b>[[User:Joe G|Joe G.]]</b></font> ([[User_talk:Joe G|Talk]]) 22:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
::{{please note}} that the project leaders could be here just for technical stuff and managing the site,
:::Like the template! :) Anyways, I don't think we need to change the actual roles of what they do, just who has more power over the other. It's sort of a checks-balances system. We allow project leaders to appoint people or do something, it gets voted on by council. If the council doesn't like an action of the project leaders, it vetoes it because it's the body more-representative of the community. Make sense? -- <font color="blue"><b>[[User:Joe G|Joe G.]]</b></font> ([[User_talk:Joe G|Talk]]) 23:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Yea, i love your idea, the council would be an entity between the community and the project leaders, but i don't think they had to decide of technical stuff like global extensions and new project leaders/stewards/developpers (could submit a community member for steward request, but the project leaders have the final vote.) -[[User:Benjozork|Benjozork]] ([[User talk:Benjozork|talk]])
----
As far as I can tell, there have been two suggested amendments:
* Removing the right of project leaders to override Community Council decisions. I am sympathetic to this one, because I think it will be a good thing to have in a year from now. The reason I added this in was because there are some things that will be at the core of Orain's values and vision which we haven't put on paper yet, but which Dusti and I have thought of and would like to have done a specific way. For example, the Congress can override the President's decisions, but it's still subject to the Constitution, the equivalent of which we haven't yet set out. Joe made a great point in IRC though: the current Council can be trusted to follow the vision of Dusti and I for the foreseeable future, and it's better for the Leader not to have that right if/when it will be some else.
* Removing the Project Leaders from the Community Council. I disagree with this. I think this may stem from a misleading explanation of the Council's duty to review the Leader's work. To be clearer, the Council will not just review the Leader's work, it will review the developers' work, the stewards' work, etc. Like I said, the Project Leader will not be calling many shots and will not be directly responsible for much, therefore there shouldn't be a big conflict of interest. It makes sense for the Leaders to work with the Council to define the roadmap of the project.
[[User:Kudu|Kudu]] ([[User talk:Kudu|talk]]) 23:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
::To clarify, in essence of "...the project leader will not be calling many shots...", you are establishing that the community council should be the "upper" entity if you will? That's what I'm looking for since it's more representative of the community as a whole rather than one or two people. -- <font color="blue"><b>[[User:Joe G|Joe G.]]</b></font> ([[User_talk:Joe G|Talk]]) 23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
:::You can think of them as mostly parallel. The Council is an "upper" entity only when it reviews serious issues with the way things were handled. [[User:Kudu|Kudu]] ([[User talk:Kudu|talk]]) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
== Proposal #2 ==
Due to the obvious issue with counting people's votes on a proposal which has been amended afterwards, here is a new proposal.
----
=== Project Leaders ===
The Project Leaders are [[User:Dusti|Dusti]] and [[User:Kudu|Kudu]]. The Leaders coordinate day-to-day tasks such as wiki recruitment, public relations, marketing, system administration, software development, etc. They can also directly appoint people to some relatively minor positions where deep trust isn't required (e.g. IRC channel operators).
=== Community Council ===
The members of the Community Council are [[User:addshore|addshore]], [[User:Dusti|Dusti]], [[User:Joe G|Joe G]], [[User:John|John]] and [[User:Kudu|Kudu]]. The Council should be representative of the community, and more members may be appointed as the community grows based on the community's advice. They oversee spending and finances, review day-to-day operations, handle complaints, settle major disputes between members, etc. The Community Council should consult the community whenever it's necessary. When there is dissent amongst themselves, they should make an effort to reach consensus or compromise.
:{{question}} Do we need to be 18+ for the council? -[[User:Benjozork|Benjozork]] ([[User talk:Benjozork|talk]]) 14:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
==== Stewards ====
All members of the Community Council are stewards. Other users may also be appointed by the Council based on advice from the community and the Leaders. Stewards are responsible for creating wikis, assigning user rights, and dealing with functions that require access to non-public information, such as CheckUser and oversight. They must also signal important issues or disputes to the Community Council for their consideration.
=== Ombudsman ===
The Ombudsman is appointed by the Council on the community's advice. The first Ombudsman will be [[User:AugurNZ|AugurNZ]]. They are subscribed to all private mailing lists, such as the ones for Council members and stewards. They oversee the Council's, the Leaders' and the stewards' work, making sure that users' privacy is respected, that users are treated fairly, that no information is kept private when it should be public (transparency), etc.
----
Please comment on the amended proposal and the Ombudsman nomination as well. [[User:Kudu|Kudu]] ([[User talk:Kudu|talk]]) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{Support}} [[User:Kudu|Kudu]] ([[User talk:Kudu|talk]]) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
::What?! self-support?! -[[User:Benjozork|Benjozork]] ([[User talk:Benjozork|talk]]) 00:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::It's not self-support, since all I did was write the text. The ideas come from several community members. [[User:Kudu|Kudu]] ([[User talk:Kudu|talk]]) 00:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{support}} I like this! -- <font color="blue"><b>[[User:Joe G|Joe G.]]</b></font> ([[User_talk:Joe G|Talk]]) 00:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{comment}} I resubmit my election idea for the community council every 1 or 2 years, with a membership time limit. -[[User:Benjozork|Benjozork]] ([[User talk:Benjozork|talk]]) 00:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
::Ben, this should definitely be done in the future. However, right now, there aren't enough members to run a decent election, and it makes more sense to wait until there is before defining the eligibility criteria, the terms, etc. [[User:Kudu|Kudu]] ([[User talk:Kudu|talk]]) 00:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Okay :) -[[User:Benjozork|Benjozork]] ([[User talk:Benjozork|talk]]) 00:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{support|Weak support}}. -[[User:Benjozork|Benjozork]] ([[User talk:Benjozork|talk]]) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{support}} [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 14:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{support}} <font face="MV Boli">[[User:Dusti|'''<font color="#ff0000">D</font><font color="#ff6600">u</font><font color="#009900">s</font><font color="#0000ff">t</font><font color="#6600cc">i</font>''']][[User talk:Dusti|<sup>*Let's talk!*</sup>]]</font> 01:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
----
The above proposal is adopted. It is recommended that it be reviewed in a year from now at most. [[User:Kudu|Kudu]] ([[User talk:Kudu|talk]]) 01:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
| |||