Wikimedia meetings/2006-02-05

A meeting was held on IRC on February 5, 2006 to discuss the new committees set up last month. The meeting was open to anyone. A full transcript of the chat follows. Times are UTC +1. Angela was present, Anthere had been excused, jwales joined at 23:16, TimShell joined at 23:00. Kim Bruning took up the role of meeting-moderator. (Raw log:[1] | Edited minutes: /Minutes)

greetings (cookies, agenda)

 21:53 JOIN: meeting_log
  21:53:50 <paginazero> g'day folks
 21:53 JOIN: WalterBE
  21:54:04 <Dvortygirl> Amgine: mmm, cookies. :)
  21:54:15 <TOR_CNR> kim_bruning: does that mean you've just burned your dinner? :P
 21:54 JOIN: Datrio
 21:54 JOIN: Pyb_
  21:54:25 <kim_bruning> too bad there's no stroopwafels :-P
  21:54:33 <Amgine> The really hard ones are made by the kid and I, the cinnamon ones are storebought.
  21:54:38 <kim_bruning> TOR_CNR, bruning, to do with brown, not burning, to do with black ;-)
  21:54:42 <mav> anybody know if notafish will be at the meeting? She edited the meeting page saying yes.... \
  21:55:01 <soufron>  /query mav 
  21:55:04 <soufron> ahah :)
 21:55 Action: *mindspillage perks up: someone brought cookies? :-)
 21:55 JOIN: TimStarling
  21:55:18 <TOR_CNR> kim_bruning: whatever. to me the two are almost the same anyway... ;)
 21:55 JOIN: Xirzon
  21:55:30 <Amgine> I can get the hobnobs from the cupboard, if I knew you all wanted them...
  21:55:30 <Xirzon> hi :)
  21:55:33 <kim_bruning> galwaygirl turns into ChrisCE?
  21:55:33 <Datrio> hey Tim, hej Xirzon
  21:55:37 <Xirzon> wow, pretty full
 21:55 Action: *_sj_ has some molasses snaps
  21:55:40 <kim_bruning> That's an odd turn of events
  21:55:48 <kim_bruning> hello Xirzon 
  21:55:49 <_sj_> galway, come back...
  21:55:54 <mav> brb - I need to get my power cable (battery running low)
  21:55:58 <kim_bruning> Hey! Hi _sj_ !
  21:56:06 <Xirzon> I've set up a log bot, it's running at
  21:56:10 <TOR_CNR> yeah, there sure are more people here than are listed on the meta page :P
 21:56 JOIN: MikeSnow
 21:56 Action: *cimon only has Fisherman's Friends stocked.
  21:56:20 <galwaygirl> _sj_: sorry, was joking with someone in #wikipedia-nl
  21:56:25 <Xirzon> hello mike
  21:56:31 <galwaygirl> i'll behave now
 21:56 JOIN: Jeandre
  21:56:32 <MikeSnow> Hi Xirzon, everyone
 21:56 JOIN: SonicWN
  21:56:34 <kim_bruning> galwaygirl, I missed it!
 21:56 JOIN: cormaggio
  21:56:45 <TimStarling> what meta page?
  21:56:49 <galwaygirl> kim_bruning: what, the 3fm thing?
  21:56:57 <Xirzon> TimStarling:
  21:56:58 <TOR_CNR> this one:
 21:57 JOIN: gattonero
  21:57:12 <kim_bruning> galwaygirl, the joke... what 3fm thing?
 21:57 Action: *TimStarling just knows everything by word of mouth these days
  21:57:15 <Amgine> <points to topic>
  21:57:20 <gattonero> oh god.
  21:57:25 <gattonero> so english here :D
  21:57:33 <Xirzon> hi gattonero!
  21:57:38 <gattonero> hi Xirzon 
  21:57:39 <gattonero> :D
  21:57:41 <brion> i want to thank the organizers for scheduling this meeting at a time i was awake for once ;)
 21:58 Action: *TOR_CNR giggles
  21:58:02 <takot> I surely does :)
  21:58:09 <TOR_CNR> here here ;)
  21:58:09 <takot> oops
  21:58:12 <MikeSnow> brion: purely by accident
  21:58:17 <takot> So do I.
 21:58 JOIN: Trickstar
  21:58:39 <Amgine> Other people are getting ready for bed, so let's get the meeting going.
 21:59 JOIN: Celestianpower
 21:59 JOIN: lambent
  21:59:11 <cimon> Sorry for flooding...
  21:59:14 <cimon> Topics of discussion may include:
  21:59:14 <cimon>     * scope of work for each committee
  21:59:14 <cimon>     * need for subcommittees and procedures to create them
  21:59:14 <cimon>     * membership procedures
  21:59:14 <cimon>     * roles within committees: chair, member, consultant
  21:59:17 <cimon>     * decision-making processes
  21:59:19 <cimon>     * ways to deal with confidential information
  21:59:22 <AlisonW> brion ... when I worked for a SF company staff meetings were IRC at 3am!
  21:59:22 <cimon>     * interaction and communication between the committees and to the Board
 21:59 JOIN: NullC
  21:59:23 <cimon>     * legal liability of committee and their members
  21:59:25 <cimon>     * multilingual membership
 21:59 JOIN: elian
  21:59:48 <Xirzon> hi elian
  21:59:52 <elian> hiho
  21:59:56 <Angela> One of the reasons the meeting was moved to this day was so Jimmy and Anthere could be here, so I suggest we wait a bit for them to arrive.
  22:00:11 <Xirzon> elian: ah, your unique greeting ;)
  22:00:24 <mav> ok - at full power now
 22:00 Action: *_sj_ steps back from mav
  22:00:42 <Xirzon> _sj_: I was about to do the same ;)
  22:00:44 <TOR_CNR> cimon: There is a mistake there. Angela wrote that we should avoid the term "consultant". Use "advisor" instead. :) I'll edit that out now.
  22:00:54 <cimon> right, at least wait for anthere, i wouldn't sweat jimbo... :)
  22:01:07 <romihaitza> re gangleri
  22:01:11 <Xirzon> whoops, looks like mav overheated
 22:01 JOIN: unforgettableid
  22:01:26 <kim_register> conslutant, sultant
  22:01:27 <gangleri> Hi Mihai!
 22:01 JOIN: mav
  22:01:40 <GerardM> welcome back mav :)
  22:01:42 <kim_register> hello elian!
  22:01:48 <kim_register> Hello NullC!
 22:02 JOIN: Kipcool
  22:02:01 <Frieda> ciao elian :-)
 22:02 JOIN: dannyisme
  22:02:13 <Xirzon> hi danny!
  22:02:20 <Frieda> ciao danny!
  22:02:24 <dannyisme> hello all
 22:02 JOIN: Commander_Keane
  22:02:33 <mav> howdy
  22:02:40 <Talrias> hello :)
  22:02:43 <JoanneB> hi! 
  22:02:44 <takot> good morning :)
  22:02:44 <Celestianpower> Hi all
  22:02:49 <mav> let's get this party started
 22:02 Action: *mindspillage waves
 22:02 Action: *Celestianpower passes the popcorn
  22:03:05 <romihaitza> gangleri, n-am inteles de ce ai spus ca nu e bine de forma Sat (Comuna), Judet 
  22:03:25 <Talrias> is it a search party, mav?
 22:03 JOIN: Pathoschild
  22:03:39 <mav> nah
  22:03:40 <Angela> TOR_CNR: I forgot which way it was meant to be changed. :)
 22:03 JOIN: blaite
 22:04 JOIN: delphine
 22:04 JOIN: FireFox
 22:04 JOIN: Shanel
  22:04:13 <mindspillage> hey, delphine. :-)
  22:04:16 <mav> welcom all
 22:04 JOIN: nach0king
  22:04:18 <cimon> Anthere is on #wikimedia
 22:04 JOIN: akl
  22:04:26 <mav> damn - lots of people
 22:04 JOIN: Alphax
  22:04:26 <Xirzon> hi nota, akl, ...
  22:04:36 <TOR_CNR> Angela: lol. I *think* it's the right way on the ChapCom page on internal. And it says "advisor" there, so... ;)
 22:04 JOIN: EuropracBHIT
  22:04:48 <TOR_CNR> delphine: hello there ;)
  22:04:50 <Xirzon> mav: more interest than you would guess from the foundation-l thread
  22:04:58 <mav> I guess
  22:05:00 <EuropracBHIT> Hi Delphine and Mav.
  22:05:05 <mav> hi
  22:05:05 <EuropracBHIT> It's very important,isn't it?
  22:05:09 <gattonero> hi delphine  :D
  22:05:12 <Talrias> Xirzon: sj just added it in the recent changes text on en ;)
 22:05 JOIN: Tdevries
  22:05:17 <Xirzon> ohhh
  22:05:19 <cimon> Angela: you might try phoning them, if you have their numbas
  22:05:33 <Xirzon> EuropracBHIT: It is TEH MEETING OF DOOM
  22:05:36 <mav> first order of business ; who controls the paperclip budget? ;)
  22:05:47 <cimon> or the /topic
  22:06:04 <Angela> I don't think I have Anthere's new phone number.
  22:06:04 <Talrias> can someone update "Now" to "6 minutes ago"? :)
 22:06 JOIN: Pyb_
 22:06 JOIN: rob|coding
 22:06 JOIN: ChrisO
 22:06 JOIN: karynn
  22:06:21 <romihaitza> :-)
  22:06:23 <Celestianpower> How exciting - people
  22:06:29 <ChrisO> anyone know what this meeting is to be about anyway?
  22:06:35 <Talrias> nope, no one knows ChrisO 
 22:06 JOIN: AngryParsley
  22:06:40 <Celestianpower> ChrisO: See the topic
  22:06:40 <rob|coding> Completely and utterly a guess
  22:06:41 <Shanel> hello people and robots
  22:06:45 <rob|coding> With absolutely no basis in logic
  22:06:47 <Xirzon> ChrisO: It's about the way the new Wikimedia Foundation committees are going to work.
  22:06:47 <karynn> it's going to see how many people can be jammed into one place at one time
  22:06:47 <LeBron> re Pyb_ 
  22:06:52 <AngryParsley> what's going on in this meeting?
  22:06:54 <cimon> I kind of advertised on #wikipedia-en-admins, sorry about that.
  22:06:55 <TOR_CNR> argh... lag :/
  22:06:55 <nach0king> the topic links to a few things but it doesn't actually say what the committees *are*
  22:06:58 <rob|coding> But one might be inclined it's something to do with Wikimedia
  22:07:05 <Talrias> rob|coding: nothing gets past you :)
  22:07:06 <ChrisO> karynn: virtual telephone boxes are infinitely large
  22:07:10 <Xirzon> nach0king: The resolutions for the committees are on
  22:07:13 <nach0king> thank you
  22:07:17 <Xirzon> We might have to switch the channel to +m if it gets too noisy
  22:07:17 <ChrisO> hmm
  22:07:18 <ChrisO> Open meeting, February 2006
  22:07:18 <ChrisO> Please see foundation-l for an explanation of this meeting and sign up below for the times you are available. The meeting will be held on Sunday February 5 at 21:00 UTC on the IRC channel #wikimedia-meeting on
  22:07:19 <mav> oh - and we have to make sure everybody submits their TPS reports on time
  22:07:20 <EuropracBHIT> Whether outsiders should be on the committees, like on the list?
  22:07:24 <rob|coding> Good evening Erik
  22:07:25 <AngryParsley> nooo, not +m
  22:07:28 <Xirzon> hi rob!
  22:07:37 <Amgine> Committees are the new elements of governance being added to the Wikimedia Foundation.
  22:07:40 <Xirzon> EuropracBHIT: Among other things, yes, we should discuss membership procedures.
  22:07:44 <TOR_CNR> mav: what's a TPS report? :P
  22:07:53 <ChrisO> okay, this looks like it
  22:07:54 <Interiot> Has anybody seen my stapler?
  22:07:54 <mav> exactly
  22:07:55 <ChrisO> "I would like to propose an IRC meeting be held, for all committee organizers along with all community members who want to take an interest in the future running of the Foundation. The aim will be to find ways the committees can remain accountable, legally and financially, but also accountable to the Board and community. The meeting is also to discuss how open and transparent various aspects of those committees can or should be
  22:08:05 <Talrias> is saying that making committees sounds very bureaucratic to me obvious to anyone else? :)
  22:08:21 <delphine> Anthere is at the clinic :)
  22:08:32 <mav>
  22:08:38 <cormaggio> i thought she was going tomorrow
 22:08 JOIN: Submarine
  22:08:48 <delphine> she is there today
  22:08:52 <brion> Talrias: we need just a touch of bureaucracy. When things don't get done because nobody has it in their responsibility, it sucks. :P
  22:08:52 <cormaggio> no way
  22:08:59 <Frieda> ciao delphine
 22:09 Action: *gattonero eats some vegan pizza, in the meanwhile
  22:09:01 <AngryParsley> I say jimbo should give a "state of the wiki" speech once a year
  22:09:08 <Xirzon> Angela: let's start officially then?
  22:09:09 <Talrias> brion: i know :)
  22:09:10 <TimStarling> where's Jimmy?
  22:09:15 <EuropracBHIT> I thought Wikimedians acted beyond the call of duty ... like on Uncyclopedia.
  22:09:17 <rory096> angry: i second that
  22:09:21 <Angela> I just sms'd him. I don't know if he'll come.
  22:09:21 <AngryParsley> put it in the wikitustion
  22:09:22 <mav> state of the wiki?
  22:09:24 <EuropracBHIT> Me too.
  22:09:39 <Interiot>  <== TPS report
  22:09:46 <mav> who is moderating this meeting?
  22:09:51 <AngryParsley> ok, enough office space crap
  22:09:56 <Angela> any volunteers to moderate>
  22:09:59 <Xirzon> I guess Angela is moderating, since she suggested it?
  22:10:00 <Talrias> we need moderating?
  22:10:08 <Xirzon> Angela: had enough coffee? :)
  22:10:12 <AlisonW> Could people please use another channel (#wikiedmai perhaps) for side conversations and the state of theior drinking . cooking. thankyou
  22:10:16 <AngryParsley> Talrias: men must be governed
 22:10 JOIN: TerryFoote
  22:10:30 <Xirzon> hello Terry!
  22:10:37 <TerryFoote> Hey Xirzon
  22:10:38 <mav> Terry!
  22:10:39 <Tinfoiled> Is Wikimedia willing to ban specific U.S. Senate IP ranges from editing?
  22:10:43 <EuropracBHIT> Angry Parsley: much as we hate to admit it, it's true. Much as we would like to live in a Roussean stateof nature...
  22:10:44 <TerryFoote> Mav!
  22:10:48 <EuropracBHIT> If it has to be that serious.
  22:10:49 <ChrisO> angry: why? I'm happy living in a state of nature
 22:10 JOIN: Chiacomo^
  22:10:59 <mav> we can start the meeting now that Terry is here
  22:11:03 <Talrias> i propose we voice Angela, and +m the channel
  22:11:04 <EuropracBHIT> Not everybody is.
  22:11:05 <Talrias> who's TerryFoote?
  22:11:08 <romihaitza> �04What about new wikipedia languages adding?
  22:11:10 <unforgettableid> OK, what is the agenda?
  22:11:12 <AngryParsley> Talrias: nooo
  22:11:14 <mindspillage> Tinfoiled: that's more an en: admin noticeboard sort of thing, no? 
  22:11:15 <Talrias> romihaitza: turn that colour off please :)
  22:11:19 <TimStarling> +c +c
  22:11:22 <ChrisO> Talrias: seconded, otherwise this will be a bit anarchic
  22:11:22 <rob|coding> How about we all shut up and let Angela or Erik start? ;-)
  22:11:32 <romihaitza> sorry.. it was not in my intention
  22:11:34 <Talrias> ChrisO: why are we passing motions in an IRC channel :p
  22:11:38 <AngryParsley> at least give everyone voice, then devoice all the lame people
  22:11:38 <kim_register> side talk -> #wikimedia
  22:11:41 <kim_register> order order?
 22:11 Action: *Xirzon solemnly waits for Angela to speak
 22:11 Action: *unforgettableid too
 22:12 JOIN: bawolff
  22:12:00 <Angela> I don't want to moderate. I thought Jimmy or Anthere were going to, but tey're not here, so is there anyone else who wants to?
 22:12 Action: *ChrisO passes Angela the mic
  22:12:07 <Talrias> Angela: sure
  22:12:11 <robchurch> ok
  22:12:13 <Talrias> Angela: done it plenty of times before :)
 22:12 JOIN: southpark
  22:12:19 <robchurch> If we get badges
  22:12:22 <EuropracBHIT> What about Tim?
  22:12:23 <kim_register> ROTFL
  22:12:24 <NullC> The meeting is worthless without Jimmy and Anthere.
  22:12:26 <Celestianpower> Moderate?
 22:12 MODE: +o Talrias by: ChanServ
  22:12:32 <Talrias> eek
  22:12:32 <elian> Angela: you're a good moderator
  22:12:34 <kim_register> Talrias, ?
  22:12:36 <AngryParsley> dun dun dunnnnn
  22:12:36 <mav> not worthless
  22:12:37 <Talrias> anyone wanna help?
  22:12:40 <unforgettableid> ok
  22:12:43 <ChrisO> Angela, did Jimmy and Anthere say they'd be here?
  22:12:47 <Angela> Yes.
 22:12 MODE: +v Angela by: Talrias
  22:12:52 <AngryParsley> Talrias: don't op me, I'd only bring chaos and destruction
 22:13 JOIN: borism
  22:13:00 <kim_register> Ok, I'd better be mod too
  22:13:00 <Angela> Elian: I can't really pay attention if I'm worried abotu voicing and unvoicing people.
 22:13 MODE: +v mav by: Talrias
 22:13 MODE: +o kim_register by: Talrias
  22:13:13 <kim_register> that was very quick
  22:13:13 <delphine> Angela well, Anthere has a good excuse :)
 22:13 MODE: +v Xirzon by: Talrias
  22:13:26 <AngryParsley> I would like voice though, if we're going to go +m soon
  22:13:28 <kim_register> Anthere is ... busy ... right now
 22:13 MODE: +v soufron by: Talrias
  22:13:36 <kim_register> preplanned 9 months ago :-)
  22:13:44 <robchurch> Ant's in labour?
  22:13:46 <kim_register> we don't really need +v I don't think
 22:13 MODE: +v TimStarling by: ChanServ
 22:13 JOIN: Cruccone
  22:13:55 <TimStarling> lol cabal
  22:13:57 <EuropracBHIT> Wow, the first wikibaby.
  22:13:57 <Talrias> it's to stop those chatty people :p
  22:14:00 <kim_register> robchurch, dunno for sure exactly when

introductions (Angela, soufron)

  22:14:00 <Xirzon> Talrias: thanks. I think the idea is that each committee organizer present elaborates on their ideas of how the committee is supposed to be run, but perhaps we should start with a general discussion about the needs, role and configuration of an Executive Committee first.
  22:14:03 <kim_register> Okay
  22:14:09 <kim_register> can we get this meeting started?
  22:14:14 <Talrias> right, off-topic chatter -> #wikimedia 
  22:14:15 <Angela> ok, so the current status is that at the last board meeting, we approved the creation of a number of committes:
 :"Leaving" 22:14 PART: robchurch
  22:14:18 <Datrio> yes, please do
  22:14:28 <AngryParsley> yes, we're meeting
  22:14:35 <kim_register> (angela has the floor :-))
  22:14:40 <Angela> And now people are (meant to be) organising those and reporting on their membership etc, which the board will (in theory) approve.
 22:14 MODE: +v dannyisme by: Talrias
  22:14:57 <kim_register> Ok, so the board should be present, but is not at this point in time
  22:15:06 <EuropracBHIT> How is the chapters committee going?
  22:15:15 <EuropracBHIT> And the events committee?
  22:15:15 <kim_register> EuropracBHIT, we'll get to that
 22:15 MODE: +m  by: Talrias
 : 22:15 PART: AngryParsley
  22:15:59 <Xirzon> For the record, the appointed organizers of each committee are listed on the individual resolutions at
  22:16:00 <Angela> so far, only the chapter committee officially exists, with communications and finance in "motion to vote", and Special projects being voted on. There are no other votes pending for the others.
 22:16 JOIN: basis
  22:16:22 <Angela> Xirzon: they are also listed at
 22:16 JOIN: ChrisCE
  22:16:50 <kim_register> (folks stay cool)
 22:16 JOIN: Teofilo
  22:17:02 <mav> so what exactly do we need to talk about here?
 22:17 MODE: -m  by: kim_register
  22:17:07 <Angela> One problem is the committees are just being made with little consideration of how they will operate, such as whether they will have to report to the board, or whether membership will be open and transparent.
 :"well, I don't have voice, we're talking about the chapter committee. So much for openess" 22:17 PART: delphine
 22:17 JOIN: carlmb
  22:17:26 <soufron> ?
 22:17 JOIN: Jeandre
  22:17:40 <Xirzon> Talrias: could you invite delphine back and give her voice, please?
  22:17:41 <mav> wha...
  22:17:47 <ChrisO> Angela: what status will the committee members have? will they be employees of the foundation, or some other formal sort of standing?
  22:17:48 <Talrias> sorry, i missed her
 22:17 MODE: +v TOR_CNR by: Talrias
  22:18:05 <kim_register> channel is -m
  22:18:06 <mav> not employees
  22:18:12 <EuropracBHIT> Me too ... as an active member of the Wikimedia Australia sterring committee we do need her.
  22:18:13 <EuropracBHIT> Good!
  22:18:14 <kim_register> we don't need _+v
  22:18:22 <Angela> Not employees, no, and also not "officers", so not covered by the B&O insurance.
  22:18:24 <EuropracBHIT> Not that I shouldn't want to take on the extra responsibility ...
  22:18:38 <soufron> well
  22:18:39 <EuropracBHIT> More information about the insurance, please?
  22:18:46 <soufron> since I am the one who drafted that committee system
  22:18:51 <soufron> here is the way it works
 22:18 JOIN: mark
  22:19:10 <soufron> our current problem is that we are unable to get simple things done in fast and efficient way
  22:19:16 <soufron> I don't mean complicated strategy decisions
  22:19:16 <ChrisO> Angela: okay. one concern you might get from people is exposure to legal liabilities etc, e.g. if the next Siegenthaler decides to sue
  22:19:20 <soufron> or difficult planning
  22:19:21 <Angela> Michael Davis, Angela Beesley, Jimmy Wales, and Danny Wool are filling applications for insurance. This will cover the board and officers (current soufron is the only officer)
  22:19:25 <soufron> pliease
  22:19:32 <Angela> This isn't about content of the projects.
  22:19:34 <mav> let soufron finish
 : 22:19 PART: Pathoschild
 22:19 JOIN: MrMiscellanious
  22:19:43 <EuropracBHIT> Yes, that's true ... things take months. Thank you for the explanation.
 22:19 JOIN: delphine
 22:19 MODE: +v delphine by: Talrias
  22:19:51 <soufron> so once again
  22:19:54 <soufron> here is the way it works
  22:19:57 <soufron> our current problem is that we are unable to get simple things done in fast and efficient way
  22:20:00 <NullC> Where the the currently proposed list of committees come from? How do we know that we're correctly targeted? or is this just based on what people are offering to do?
  22:20:03 <soufron> I don't mean complicated strategy decisions
  22:20:09 <soufron> ...
  22:20:15 <mav> NullC ; Let soufron finish
 :"Leaving" 22:20 PART: MrMiscellanious
  22:20:48 <soufron> but simple things like "let's pay 150$ to these 3 people so they can meet and get a few more things done"
 22:21 JOIN: basis
  22:21:06 <soufron> or "let's decide that this and this guy will have to register these 2 domain names by next month"
  22:21:16 <soufron> as of today, these very simple decisions takes months
 : 22:21 PART: FireFox
  22:21:18 <soufron> when they are taken
  22:21:45 <mav> committees = delegation of authority 
  22:21:50 <karynn> soufron: sounds like you need an executive director
  22:21:53 <ChrisO> might I ask who decides them currently?
  22:21:56 <EuropracBHIT> Will each committee operate on a date restriction .. like 30 days or so?
  22:21:56 <soufron> please
  22:21:56 <Angela> Yes, one idea for committees was to delegate authority away from the board so more people could do stuff without waiting too long for the board to decide something.
  22:21:59 <soufron> please
  22:22:14 <soufron> our point is that we need small decisions to be taken
  22:22:25 <soufron> there is no need for a real executive director as of today, not yet
  22:22:35 <soufron> but there is a need for small delegations of executive authority
  22:22:44 <soufron> to people who want to help on a volunteer basis
  22:22:52 <mav> *nod*
 22:22 JOIN: Sbisolo
  22:23:06 <soufron> with an easy and efficient control coming back from the community and from the board (wich also represent the community)
  22:23:17 <soufron> then
  22:23:21 <soufron> we had that problem
  22:23:25 <soufron> and in january
  22:23:46 <soufron> we decided to hold a meeting in florida to work on this and on other problems
  22:23:50 <soufron> with angela
  22:23:52 <soufron> michael
  22:23:53 <soufron> tim
  22:23:55 <soufron> delphine
  22:23:56 <soufron> danny
  22:23:59 <soufron> mav
  22:24:03 <soufron> me
  22:24:05 <soufron> who else ? 
  22:24:06 <soufron> terry
  22:24:11 <dannyisme> anthere on the phone
  22:24:11 <soufron> and well, other people :)
  22:24:11 <mav> Brad
  22:24:17 <TimStarling> jimmy
  22:24:17 <Angela> Terry wasn't at that meeting.
  22:24:19 <soufron> plus anthere on the phone and brad, the attorney of the wmf
 22:24 JOIN: the_lurker
  22:24:31 <soufron> Angela, true, but he was at the office and we talked to him too :)
  22:24:36 <Angela> Brion and domas were on the phone for part of it.
  22:24:44 <soufron> then 
  22:24:54 <soufron> we took 3 or 4 days discussing these issues
  22:25:00 <soufron> and we tried to find a way to get it done
  22:25:04 <soufron> especially because of me
  22:25:05 <mav> long days
  22:25:06 <soufron> let me explain
  22:25:22 <soufron> as you know, I am the chief legal officer of the foundation 
  22:25:32 <soufron> I am supposed to take care of trademarks, etc... now
  22:25:43 <soufron> but ... 
  22:25:49 <EuropracBHIT> How did the trademark decision come to be?
  22:25:54 <soufron> in december, we had a huge trademark crisis
  22:25:58 <soufron> something big
  22:26:02 <soufron> I won't get into details here
  22:26:15 <soufron> for judicial safety reason, as well as for time reason 
  22:26:17 <Angela> Please don't since the meeting is being logged.
  22:26:30 <soufron> but basically, I needed things decided in a matter of hours
  22:26:34 <EuropracBHIT> Do you ever edit the loggs?
  22:26:35 <soufron> I mean : money
  22:26:36 <soufron> and signatures
  22:26:41 <soufron> how to do that ? 
  22:26:47 <soufron>  I needed a decision from the board
  22:27:04 <soufron> with these 5 people living in 5 different places to take some time to sign and decide
  22:27:12 <soufron> only to talk to them was a hassle
  22:27:29 <soufron> and delphine has exactly the same problems with her work on wikimania and the local chapters
  22:27:39 <soufron> her solution for wikimania was to ask to become an external contractor
  22:27:45 <soufron> so that she would not depend on decisions from the board
  22:27:50 <EuropracBHIT> That has its problems, doesn
  22:27:54 <EuropracBHIT> 't it?
  22:27:54 <soufron> but I could not do that
  22:27:57 <soufron> so
  22:28:03 <soufron> we held a meeting with brad
  22:28:07 <Talrias> these committees are intended to streamline the procedures?
  22:28:10 <soufron> who just happen to be specialized in governance
  22:28:12 <ChrisO> hmmm
  22:28:24 <dannyisme> a long meeting
  22:28:25 <soufron> and we begun brainstorming
  22:28:29 <soufron> for... 3 days
  22:28:31 <soufron> loooong days
  22:28:36 <dannyisme> soufron, can I add something
  22:28:55 <soufron> what to do ? ceo or not ? giving more power to 2 or 3 people from the board, or not ? 
  22:28:57 <soufron> dannyisme, go ahead
  22:28:58 <ChrisO> so really, what you need is some sort of delegated network of people authorised to take executive decisions on behalf of WMF
  22:28:58 <AlisonW> With any organisation (and this is no different in this respect) there needs to be a defined path to a decision; where the authority lies and to what level it can be used
  22:29:06 <dannyisme> yes
  22:29:08 <dannyisme> thank you
  22:29:11 <ChrisO> since you would need to be able to deal with multiple jurisdictions
  22:29:14 <dannyisme> also, i want to add one point
  22:29:17 <ChrisO> and multiple timezones
 22:29 JOIN: Ugur_Basak
  22:29:27 <dannyisme> the wikimedia foundation is registered in the state of florida
  22:29:31 <ChrisO> is that right? or are we just talking about what will meet US requirements?
  22:29:33 <dannyisme> and comes under florida law
  22:30:12 <dannyisme> to maintain our legal status, it was necessary that we adhere to florida law regarding institutions like ours
  22:30:20 <dannyisme> that is all
  22:30:27 <soufron> so
  22:30:40 <soufron> we needed to be able to arbitrate between all of this
  22:30:59 <soufron> and my idea was to create groups of people with small delegated authority from the board
  22:31:00 <soufron> I mean
  22:31:13 <soufron> practicallly speaking, most of the blocked decisions imply nothing big
  22:31:15 <Talrias> will the committees have any actual authority?
  22:31:20 <soufron> just small amounts of money
  22:31:25 <soufron> or small signature powers
  22:31:43 <mav> each committe would have its own budget, yes?
  22:31:47 <Xirzon> soufron: While I completely share your concern about small delegations of authority, larger decisions are affected in exactly the same way by exactly the same communication and decision-making bottlenecks.
  22:31:55 <soufron> Xirzon, please
  22:32:02 <Angela> Committees would ave budgets, yes.
  22:32:02 <Xirzon> yes?
  22:32:06 <soufron> so
  22:32:15 <soufron> the thing is to have groups of people 
  22:32:24 <soufron> and to get them to propose things that the board can actually vote on
  22:32:26 <soufron> I mean... 
  22:32:30 <soufron> not the way you work today :-)
  22:32:43 <soufron> that's why, based on my experience
  22:32:45 <soufron> I suggested
  22:32:54 <soufron> weekly or bi-weekly meeting
  22:32:58 <soufron> where you vote and you don't discuss
  22:33:11 <soufron> with proposals being deposited 5 days before
  22:33:34 <soufron> these committees only vote on the topics that the board delegated to them
 22:33 JOIN: WiseWoman
  22:33:40 <TimStarling> can we talk about the committee selection process yet?
  22:33:40 <Angela> I don't see the point of committees *not* discussing what they're voting on.
  22:33:42 <soufron> the board can take back any delegation at any time
  22:33:45 <carlmb> the committees would be vote-based?
 : 22:33 PART: Commander_Keane
 22:33 JOIN: Dbl2010
 : 22:33 PART: ChrisO
  22:33:57 <soufron> please
 : 22:34 PART: Celestianpower
  22:34:07 <Xirzon> soufron: I think you're going from telling the history of the committees to telling us about a particular setup preferred by you.
  22:34:19 <Xirzon> I would prefer to discuss the exact setup and communication procedures, as well as the nature of delegation of authority openly.
  22:34:20 <dannyisme> Angela, to be precise, the committees have time to discuss, but the meeting is for purposes of voting after discussions have taken place
  22:34:23 <TOR_CNR> Angela: from what I've understood, he was talking about the board voting, not the committees
  22:34:36 <soufron> Xirzon, I am talking about what I suggested based on my experience and based on the expertise of Brad, the florida attorney for the WMF
  22:34:39 <soufron> then
  22:34:45 <Xirzon> soufron: right.
  22:34:51 <Angela> TOR_CNR: no, I don't think so.
  22:35:00 <TOR_CNR> ok, I could be wrong :P
  22:35:04 <_sj_> hey wise_woman
  22:35:20 <Datrio> TOR, get your... to xpl! :P
  22:35:21 <Xirzon> now, one topic I would like to discuss in particular is the Executive Committee, which is to be organized by Angela alone, and its relation to other committees.
  22:35:23 <soufron> now ! 

process I (Angela, soufron, all)

  22:35:24 <Angela> can I can talk about one problem that has come up on the board wiki this week now?
  22:35:24 <soufron> the big part
  22:35:32 <soufron> what will the committee do and how will they work ? 
  22:35:35 <WiseWoman> Hi, sorry I'm so late - couldn't get Mirc to let me onto tonight.
  22:35:37 <soufron> very simple
  22:35:41 <EuropracBHIT> What is the problem, ANgela?
  22:35:44 <soufron> they will decide it by themselves
  22:35:52 <soufron> and if they don't, they will get no delegations from the board
  22:36:04 <soufron> so instead of having 5 people deciding nothing
 22:36 MODE: +v brion by: Talrias
  22:36:26 <soufron> we give a chance to groups of people to decide small things that are being needed 
  22:36:32 <soufron> from my point of view
  22:36:35 <soufron> this is a job
  22:36:37 <soufron> volunteer ok
  22:36:39 <soufron> but a job
  22:36:53 <kim_register> right, with regular work
 22:36 JOIN: nsh
 22:36 MODE: +v JamesF|Away by: Talrias
  22:36:58 <kim_register> regular meetings
  22:37:00 <mav> exactly - and a job you can get fired from
 22:37 MODE: +v elian by: Talrias
  22:37:08 <akl> including responsability
  22:37:09 <soufron> so the only thing I insisted on was that they would hold regular meeting, that they would only vote on proposal, that these propsals would have to be proposed 5 days before and that they would have to ask for delegations
  22:37:10 <EuropracBHIT> So I see you have to be quick and good to make decisions to be on the committee.
  22:37:11 <soufron> then...
  22:37:21 <soufron> do you really think these committees can be closed ? 
  22:37:23 <EuropracBHIT> What is the dismissal procesdure? I don't think that's too onerous.
  22:37:29 <EuropracBHIT> How do you ask for delegations?
  22:37:29 <Angela> One issue that was raised since the last meeting is that the committees risk becoming closed processes where no one knows how they can become a member, and no one knows what the committee is up to, so I proposed the following but it didn't get Board support.
  22:37:35 <Angela>   1. Every committee shall submit a report to the Board monthly.
  22:37:35 <Angela>    2. Committee members conduct their activities publicly wherever possible, using internal means of communication only when confidentiality is required.
  22:37:35 <Angela>    3. Committee membership shall be an open and transparent process, with all committee members being informed of changes to membership, and outsiders understanding how they may join the committee.
  22:37:37 <soufron> everything could be done throught resolutions from the board
  22:37:40 <Angela> I'd like ideas on a compromise proposal that might get more support, and also comments on whether committee actions can or should be open and transparent.
  22:38:00 <soufron> it's very simple
 22:38 JOIN: FCYTravis
  22:38:07 <Xirzon> Angela: that sounds perfectly reasonable. who opposed it and why?
  22:38:08 <soufron> if someone in a committee wants it to be open
  22:38:08 <kim_register> Angela, Committee activities should be as open as possible
  22:38:13 <soufron> please
  22:38:15 <Angela> Soufron: everything should not be done through board resolutions. That defeats the point of delegating authority away from the board.
  22:38:17 <soufron> let me give a practical example
  22:38:20 <soufron> please boys
  22:38:20 <kim_register> ok, go ahead soufron!
  22:38:29 <kim_register> floor to soufron
  22:38:37 <soufron> so
  22:38:51 <soufron> let's imagine our friend here Angela thinks the XXX committee is not open enough
  22:38:55 <soufron> what does she do ? 
  22:38:59 <Xirzon> we have an XXX committee? :)
  22:39:01 <soufron> she wrap up a proposal
  22:39:09 <soufron> she makes her proposal public
  22:39:17 <soufron> and she puts it to vote for the next XXXC meeting
  22:39:20 <WiseWoman> Angela, what was the reason for no support?
  22:39:30 <soufron> and pouf
  22:39:36 <soufron> suddenly everything is open
  22:39:42 <WiseWoman> This is a big problem - there are so many committees, who can see where they are and what they are doing?
  22:39:47 <soufron> please
  22:39:51 <TimStarling> some people want the committees to decide things in secret
  22:39:55 <soufron> there is no need for us to draft the details
  22:40:02 <Xirzon> soufron: I don't think it makes sense to leave the standard of openness entirely to the committees themselves. There needs to be board and community oversight.
  22:40:06 <soufron> we should not try to control the community
  22:40:09 <TimStarling> and some people want only the already-nominated committee organisers to be able to decide who is on the committees
 22:40 JOIN: Erik_Zachte
  22:40:17 <Xirzon> soufron: exactly. the community should control itself :)
  22:40:26 <EuropracBHIT> Do all the committees have organisers yet?
  22:40:29 <TimStarling> coincidentally, they are in fact committee organisers
  22:40:29 <soufron> we must just be able to give some delegation to people with the community, when they want to do stuff and when they need our support
  22:40:30 <Angela> soufron: are you saying you don't think the committees should bother reporting to the board on what they're doing?
  22:40:36 <NullC> So is anyone going to answer my previous query on the subject of "how do we know the proposed committees are the ones we need?"
  22:40:39 <Xirzon> EuropracBHIT: formally, yes.
  22:40:43 <soufron> please
 22:40 MODE: +v NullC by: kim_register
  22:40:51 <akl> TimStarling: okay, next time wikimedia germany gets sued, we'll discuss our legal strategy on public mailing lists ;)
  22:40:56 <soufron> well if committees should report, just make it so
  22:41:04 <TimStarling> akl: nobody is saying everything should be public
  22:41:11 <akl> TimStarling: good
 22:41 MODE: +o cimon by: Talrias
  22:41:14 <Xirzon> soufron: You've had the floor. Let's go through the agenda now in an open discussion, please.
  22:41:17 <soufron> and if the board thinks they should report, what is more simple than refusing delegations if they don't ? 
  22:41:18 <WiseWoman> NullC - I assume we don't. This is a first iteration :)
  22:41:25 <Angela> NullC: they might not be, but most of them came from already informal groups of people working on specific things, like legal, tech, finance, so they seemed to be almost committees before, but without any authority.
  22:41:27 <TimStarling> read Angela's resolution again
  22:41:42 <NullC> Angela�:� I don't see legal on the current proposal.
  22:41:45 <Xirzon> soufron: I'll give you an example of a not-so-small delegation of authority that is needed.
  22:41:48 <WiseWoman> AKL - well, why not? That's the point about being an open society, isn't it? No secret meetings!
  22:41:52 <Xirzon> As you are aware, the German Wikipedia has managed to partner with a publisher called Directmedia to produce a DVD edition of their content.
  22:41:52 <NullC> For example...
  22:41:52 <kim_register> hang on, everyone at once!
  22:41:55 <soufron> so 
 22:41 MODE: +v _sj_ by: Talrias
  22:41:58 <Xirzon> Directmedia has sent product samples to the Wikimedia Foundation US repeatedly. In spite of our commitment to produce an English Wikipedia DVD, they have not yet heard back -- this is what I have been told.
  22:41:58 <akl> WiseWoman: excuse me?
  22:42:00 <Angela> NullC: trademarks is a legal issue.
  22:42:03 <soufron> from a legal point of view, that is the maximum we can do today
  22:42:11 <Xirzon> soufron: no.
  22:42:16 <soufron> Xirzon, yes
  22:42:25 <soufron> and Brad also agree with me
  22:42:38 <soufron> other solutions would be to completely change our governance
  22:42:44 <NullC> Okay, sure, we've got a trademark group proposed.. But does the trademark issue really have scaling problems?
  22:42:45 <NullC> If I may be so bold as to ask outright, What committee will be charged with stopping the flagrant disregard for US and international copyright habitually committed by Wikipedia users and administrators? Eg. [[Image:Becerra_string_quartet_4_-_1allegro.ogg [[Image:Bakercolin.jpg I find it more than a little disappointing that a project chartered with creating free content does so little to ensure that the content is actually free.
  22:42:52 <Xirzon> soufron: Yes. And as lawyers, you are inclined to be cautious with these things. But as Brad has explained, all authority is delegated from the Board, and the Board can choose how much authority is to be delegated.
  22:43:10 <Xirzon> soufron: there is nothing wrong with completely changing our governance. In fact, I would argue that it is very much necessary to do so, and exactly the right time to do so.
  22:43:16 <EuropracBHIT> hear hear Null C.
 22:43 Action: *Talrias proposes we get through the agenda and then deal with other issues
  22:43:19 <Xirzon> I would also argue that the committees are exactly the correctinstrument to do so.
  22:43:23 <soufron> Xirzon, my proposal is humanly feasable
  22:43:29 <soufron> I mean, let's be realistic
  22:43:32 <soufron> first
  22:43:32 <_sj_> (nullc: it is tough.  It would be interesting to see a review of the types of committees that a half-dozen similar organizations have, for varying definitions of 'similar')
  22:43:37 <brion> NullC: that's a matter of community self-policing. policy already forbids copyright violations, and they are to be removed when seen.
  22:43:39 <soufron> why would we change something that's actually working ? 
  22:43:42 <Xirzon> And I would argue that a complete change of governance is entirely inevitable, and that closed committees simply change the organization into a more closed, corporate structure, whichi s entirely unnecessary.
  22:43:45 <soufron> we just need to HELP people a little bit
  22:43:48 <soufron> not to control them
  22:43:56 <Xirzon> soufron: I would argue that it is very much not working fully at the moment. There are huge communication bottlenecks.
  22:43:56 <soufron> even speaking of governance makes me feel bad
  22:43:59 <kim_register> NullC, None so far, none of my questions in that field have been answered so far
  22:44:12 <Xirzon> soufron: You're exactly right. We want to empower people as much as possible. And that is what the committees can do.
  22:44:15 <kim_register> brion, well, policy is changing there.
  22:44:16 <Xirzon> And that is what we should talk about.
  22:44:30 <NullC> brion�:� But what do we do when it's not just random web users disregarding copyright?  I think, for that matter the community has exausted its options.
  22:44:30 <Xirzon> Wikimedia is an organization which thrives from networking people.
  22:44:34 <Angela> can we not get too far off-topic, but talk about whether having transparency is even a desired feature of the committees?
  22:44:34 <Xirzon> Another example is Wiktionary.
  22:44:38 <brion> kim_register: if some people claim to be doing so, they should be immediately desysopped (if opped) and banned.
  22:44:48 <soufron> no
  22:44:49 <TimStarling> perhaps it would be good if soufron or Brad could provide some references supporting their opinions on corporate governance?
  22:44:53 <Xirzon> GerardM has built contacts to the European Union, to standards bodies, to translator associations.
  22:44:56 <soufron> we don't need to empower people
  22:44:58 <NullC> Angela�:� Does anyone propose transparency as completely undesired?
  22:45:01 <kim_register> brion, Ok, that's something to discuss with the en.wikipedia community
  22:45:10 <Xirzon> There is nobody who can carry these contacts to the foundation level because the only organizational body that makes decisions is the Board of Trustees.
  22:45:10 <mav> transparency should come from monthly and quarterly reports by the committees
 22:45 JOIN: TiteSeverinette
  22:45:12 <kim_register> brion, but I have no data to back up that position
  22:45:13 <soufron> we just need to help them
  22:45:14 <brion> kim_register: and that's outside the scope of this meeting.
  22:45:14 <_sj_> Angela: Sure.  Was that the primary trouble with the proposal you mentioned?
  22:45:14 <kim_register> Alright!
  22:45:15 <Angela> NullC: that's what I'm asking.
  22:45:16 <kim_register> ORDER!
  22:45:18 <Xirzon> which is entirely aptiycal and entirely unsuual for any non-profit organization.
  22:45:19 <kim_register> ORDER!
  22:45:20 <soufron> pliz
  22:45:24 <TiteSeverinette> salut
 22:45 Action: *kim_register slams the hammer down 
  22:45:33 <kim_register> Angela, go ahead
  22:45:33 <Angela> Sj: I was hoping tim or michael would be here to answer that for themselves.
  22:45:37 <_sj_> ('lut tite)
  22:45:37 <soufron> my proposal is not only simple
  22:45:39 <soufron> it is also efficient
  22:45:44 <soufron> and it's not dangerous
  22:45:49 <soufron> maybe it will work
  22:45:58 <mav> soufron ; could you write that up on meta?
  22:45:59 <kim_register> Or we'll go to +m anyway
  22:46:00 <soufron> maybe it won't
  22:46:01 <TimStarling> Angela: so did anthere support it?
  22:46:05 <Angela> Yes.
  22:46:12 <kim_register> <Angela> can we not get too far off-topic, but talk about whether having transparency is even a desired feature of the committees?
  22:46:16 <EuropracBHIT> What does Jimbo think?
  22:46:16 <_sj_> There are also many kinds of transparency.  It is not monolithic...
  22:46:20 <Angela> perhaps some comments from soufron, danny, and delphine on why committees shouldn't be open would be useful?
  22:46:26 <soufron> but if it does not work, then we will simply try something stronger in 2 or 3 months 
  22:46:30 <kim_register> Are there any arguments for transparency, against?
  22:46:37 <soufron> why would not they be open ? 
  22:46:40 <soufron> I think they should be open
  22:46:46 <Xirzon> soufron: what will be your indication that it doesn't work? If you give people authority, they are likely to hold onto it, and defend it.
  22:46:46 <soufron> but it's up to them to make themselves open
  22:46:48 <Angela> open membership?
  22:46:52 <soufron> committees will draft their own rules
  22:46:55 <soufron> that simple
  22:46:56 <kim_register> soufron, we can't force them open?
  22:46:56 <AlisonW> There are justifications for not to be /fully/ open though ...
  22:46:58 <mav> different committees, even subcommittees, will require different levels of transparancy
  22:47:01 <Xirzon> soufron: no, it should be up to the board to ensure that the committees are open and participatory.
  22:47:05 <kim_register> Okay, AlisonW , go ahead?
  22:47:09 <EuropracBHIT> Who approves the rules of the committee?
  22:47:11 <Angela> My view is that people should at least know *how* they can join a committee.
  22:47:21 <kim_register> Ok, easy does it
  22:47:22 <Angela> EuropracBHIT: it's not currently clear.
  22:47:28 <soufron> Xirzon, since the board will accept and refuse delegations... the board will actually ensure that they are open and participatory
  22:47:31 <AlisonW> Putting it simply - and you just have to look at this meeting - a ctte needs to look at possibilities without everyone shouting their preference
  22:47:31 <soufron> once again
  22:47:36 <soufron> look at the system once again
  22:47:37 <AlisonW> it needs to investigate the options and to do that
  22:47:39 <soufron> the board
  22:47:42 <soufron> delegates authority
  22:47:44 <soufron> to committees
  22:47:47 <dannyisme> Angela, people cant know how to join a committee without having committees in place first
  22:47:48 <soufron> on small things
  22:47:48 <Xirzon> soufron: Angela has submitted a very specific resolution.
  22:47:49 <AlisonW> it doesn't need to have too many voices clamoring to be heard at once
  22:47:50 <soufron> and simple things
  22:47:56 <soufron> it can take it back whenever it's needed
  22:48:08 <AlisonW> once it present a selection of reviewed ideas then they can be discussed and pmaybe expanded if required
  22:48:10 <soufron> and committees just work the way they want
  22:48:12 <soufron> it's not exclusive
  22:48:14 <Xirzon> dannyisme: the committees should not be approved (i.e. delegated authority) unless they have clear membership procedures.
  22:48:18 <Angela> dannyisme: we have the committees:
  22:48:21 <nach0king> can i just ask Angela (or anyone else) who is eligible to join a committee? and (if this isn't going too far off topic) how then will they be selected to join a pre-existing committee
  22:48:27 <dannyisme> no
  22:48:28 <dannyisme> wait
  22:48:28 <Xirzon> soufron: they should not just "work the way they want". this is moving authority away from the community.
  22:48:30 <mav> ultimate authority is with the board ; anything they give can be taken away at any time
  22:48:30 <dannyisme> clarification
  22:48:32 <TOR_CNR> ONE AT A TIME, please.
  22:48:36 <Angela> Nach0king: that's what we need to sort out.
  22:48:37 <dannyisme> we have, as now, only one committee
  22:48:46 <dannyisme> people were not asked to be on committees
  22:48:47 <soufron> Xirzon, that is getting things done
  22:48:53 <dannyisme> people were asked to help form committees
  22:48:58 <dannyisme> they would submit names to the board
  22:48:59 <Xirzon> soufron: so is having clear procedures for membership. That will get _much_ more things done.
  22:49:05 <dannyisme> that would be the initial committee
  22:49:06 <soufron> Xirzon, if you don't agree with the way a committee work, you just send a resolution to the board
  22:49:09 <kim_register> Okay, who hasn't been answered yet?
  22:49:09 <Angela> Dannyisme: no, we have a lot. We just have only one with members approved by the board.
  22:49:15 <dannyisme> which the board would approve or disapprov
  22:49:18 <soufron> Xirzon, and they vote for or agaisnt your proposal
  22:49:20 <dannyisme> correct
  22:49:24 <dannyisme> so we only have one committee
  22:49:25 <Xirzon> soufron: Angela has already made it clear that her opinion is different on ensuring the openness of the committees.
  22:49:28 <dannyisme> none of the others are approved
  22:49:34 <Xirzon> So has Anthere.
  22:49:36 <soufron> my main point is to get things done by making it mandatory to ask people to write actual proposals when they want things to get done
  22:49:44 <mav> a committee with no members is not much of a committee
  22:49:49 <soufron> Xirzon, maybe angela could speak for herself
  22:49:55 <AlisonW> Xirzon .. authority is not with "the community" now anyway .. creating cttes with subsiarity power - though limited - would be a step *towards* that
  22:49:57 <Xirzon> soufron: she has, see above.
  22:49:59 <soufron> Xirzon, and I already made it clear that I thought the same thing
  22:50:14 <Talrias> i don't think we've actually had a case /FOR/ committees yet
  22:50:16 <kim_register> Okay, I'll use +v to show who (technically) has the floor
 22:50 JOIN: dungodung
  22:50:17 <Erik_Zachte> mav "ultimate authority is with the board ; anything they give can be taken away at any time"
  22:50:19 <Erik_Zachte> there was a time when authority was primarily with contributors
  22:50:19 <lambent> soufron: each individual should send private requests to the board to change committee policies?
  22:50:20 <soufron> committees should be opened, but they will draft it by themselves
  22:50:21 <Erik_Zachte> nowadays the board seems to reign supremely, primes inter pares, more equal than others
  22:50:25 <TimStarling> AlisonW: assuming the committees come from the community
  22:50:28 <Xirzon> AlisonW: Authority is, legally, with the Board which should, practicaly, strive to represent the interests of the community and the goals of the organization.
  22:50:44 <soufron> I don't want the community to write the rules of the XXX-african-thing subcommittee
  22:50:45 <mav> Erik - this is about the organizaiton, not the community
  22:50:56 <soufron> I want these rules approved on a case-by-case basis
  22:51:03 <soufron> and rejected when necessary
  22:51:07 <soufron> what we need is not openness
  22:51:08 <Xirzon> mav: The organization should make an attempt to be as open to community participation as possible without violationg confidentiality or risking an unacceptable increase of liability.
  22:51:10 <soufron> we have it already
  22:51:10 <Angela> soufron: why ever  can't the community write those rules?
  22:51:15 <soufron> and there is not way to get it away
  22:51:26 <cimon> kim_register:  maybe it might theoretically be useful if we handled the original agenda point by point, rather than jumping around.
  22:51:34 <kim_register> perhaps soufron fears the notorious wikinomic? ^^;;
 22:51 Action: *Xirzon agrees with cimon
  22:51:38 <kim_register> OKAY!
  22:51:39 <AlisonW> Tim & Xirzon .. the board has inherent power; committees should be prtimarily drawn from the community and have devloved power / responsibility, then report back on a regular basis
  22:51:40 <soufron> we are not talking about the community
  22:51:42 <kim_register> right
  22:51:47 <Xirzon> AlisonW: agreed
  22:51:50 <kim_register> time to go to the agenda!
  22:51:56 <brion> Erik_Zachte: the community never had authority to make purchase orders for servers, register trademarks in the foundation's name, etc.
  22:52:00 <kim_register> silence, or you shall be silenced!
  22:52:06 <soufron> but how we're gonna be sure that delphine can get a 150$ airplane ticket to go to boston to prepare wikimania
  22:52:07 <Trickstar> pls, silence, it's too much :P
  22:52:08 <mav> brion ; exactly
  22:52:09 <kim_register> (I always wanted to say that)
  22:52:12 <soufron> and bellieve me
  22:52:16 <kim_register> Okay
  22:52:20 <_sj_> kim; lol
  22:52:22 <kim_register> Checking along the agenda
  22:52:27 <soufron> so
  22:52:29 <soufron> as of today
  22:52:35 <soufron> there is no way it can happen easily and efficiently
  22:52:40 <kim_register> soufron... okay
  22:52:43 <soufron> you know how I and delphine were able to go to florida ? 
  22:52:46 <soufron> we had to ask jimbo to pay ! 
  22:52:48 <kim_register> let's go check and make sure we have the agenda
  22:52:54 <_sj_> going through the agenda would be useful.  
  22:52:56 <Xirzon> "Scope of work of each committee"
  22:52:57 <mav> lol
  22:53:01 <Xirzon> Can we start with the Executive Committee?
  22:53:05 <kim_register> soufron, clear
  22:53:08 <soufron> so you see ? 
  22:53:12 <soufron> do you think it's normal ? 
  22:53:13 <NullC> I don't see a reason why the members of the committees even need to come from the community... this is a delegation of board power, not a community initiative.
  22:53:21 <mav> hm - that is the last one we touched on during the last meeting
  22:53:21 <soufron> no no no
  22:53:23 <Talrias> i think the first thing we should discuss is whether committees are necessary
  22:53:28 <soufron> let's stay on this
  22:53:32 <Xirzon> Talrias: They have already been created.
  22:53:37 <Angela> on what soufron?
  22:53:40 <soufron> there is no committee yet
  22:53:46 <soufron> as of today
  22:53:51 <kim_register> soufron, what do we wish to stick to?
  22:53:52 <Talrias> Xirzon: things which are unnecessary can also be created ;)
  22:53:54 <mav> chapters
  22:53:55 <TimStarling> the board doesn't come from the community, despite promises made in the first year
  22:53:56 <soufron> (except the chtapter committee)
  22:54:03 <TimStarling> it'd be nice if at least some kind of decision making body did
  22:54:09 <Angela> Like the Executive Committee.
  22:54:14 <NullC> Talrias�:� Because making the board more responsive isn't just something we can wave a wand at right now, I believe strongly that they are needed.
  22:54:16 <soufron> what we have today are only proposals for the board to vote
  22:54:19 <dannyisme> TimStarling, I want to comment on that
  22:54:34 <dannyisme> decision making process implies responsibility and liability
  22:54:39 <dannyisme> i am all for delegating that
  22:54:39 <Talrias> so basically the case for committees is that it means stuff gets done faster?
  22:54:45 <dannyisme> but it must be delegated to people
  22:54:46 <NullC> s/done faster/done/
  22:54:47 <Erik_Zachte> Brion, the board seems more and more autonomous that's my point, even if I see that's in good faith, that's not how it was, when things were discussed first and only then the board gave direction
  22:54:49 <Erik_Zachte> this whole committee thing seems a bit top down to me as well
  22:54:50 <mav> can we just say that an interim EC is to be composed of the Chair, Vice Chair and Treasurer?
  22:54:50 <Erik_Zachte> even when we are invited to discuss it now
  22:54:54 <Talrias> NullC: ok, good enough for me :)
  22:54:57 <dannyisme> not to some amorphous group called "community"
  22:55:10 <Xirzon> Erik_Zachte: It's been almost exclusively discussed on internal, confidential places so far
  22:55:15 <TimStarling> at the moment we have Michael throwing his weight around, opposing Angela's resolution, who the hell is he?
  22:55:17 <soufron> the way I see it
  22:55:18 <soufron> is that Angela
  22:55:23 <soufron> clearly explained
  22:55:31 <soufron> what sort of rules she would not vote as a member of the board
  22:55:37 <Angela> There are two points of view surrounding the Executive Committee. One is that me, Jimmy, and Anthere have basically been this for the last 18 months, especially since Tim and Michael had no involvement until fairly recently when we started actually voting on stuff (the first year was based on consensus between the three of us, not votes). The other is that there isn't currently an Executive Committee so this is a completely new structure.
  22:55:38 <soufron> I mean, when she would not delegate authority
  22:55:46 <Xirzon> TimStarling: so Michael Davis opposed Angela's resolution for openness in the committees?
  22:55:54 <brion> Talrias: as an example: at this meeting, we have what... one out of five board members actually showing up? we can't get these people together to ever decide anything. some delegation of authority to get things done is needed. :P
  22:56:04 <_sj_> talrias: basically, yes.  brion: lol
  22:56:11 <Talrias> brion: fair enough. I just don't think the case had yet been made in here
  22:56:50 <Talrias> now we've established the need for committees
  22:56:52 <Talrias> in general
  22:57:00 <Angela> since Michael's not here, there's not much point discussing his opposition since I can't explain it on his behalf (though danny apparently agrees with Michael, so perhaps he can explain it from his point of view at least)
  22:57:01 <Talrias> we should establish the need for each proposed committee
  22:57:01 <TimStarling> Xirzon: rumour has it, I'll leave others to confirm or deny
  22:57:37 <Xirzon> This is exactly the reason I've always been concerned about having non-community members permanently appointed to the board.
  22:57:39 <dannyisme> what exactly would you like me to explain
 22:57 Action: *Xirzon sighs
  22:57:45 <dannyisme> and i can only explain on my behalf
  22:57:51 <soufron> Angela, and I agree with danny and michael
  22:57:53 <soufron> somehow
  22:57:58 <Angela> dannyisme: what are your oppositions to the resolution I pasted earlier?
  22:58:10 <NullC> Talrias�:� I think the reasoning stands on its own, we have two alternatives to the overall proposal: 1) replace the board with a more responsive one, or 2) be crushed under uncompleted workload.  Neither of those two are options right now, thus we should focus on the nature of the committees and not their existance. 
  22:58:14 <kim_register> alright, floor to danny
  22:58:18 <_sj_> (though this /is/ an open foundation meeting, which is a good thing.)
  22:58:20 <soufron> ok danny go on maybe
  22:58:35 <dannyisme> its irrelevant, isnt it? I am not on the board so what my personal feelings are really dont matter
  22:58:36 <kim_register> _sj_, :-)
  22:58:44 <nach0king> open meeting, you're being asked to speak, yes they matter
  22:58:52 <Angela> Dannyisme: but it might give us some insight into what the other side of the story is.
  22:58:53 <_sj_> angela, is there a link to the proposal somewhere?
  22:58:54 <Talrias> what I mean is, why do we need an events committee?
  22:59:00 <EuropracBHIT> Your feelings do shape what we want on the board. My feelings, everybody's feelings.
  22:59:01 <Angela> Sj: no, sorry.
  22:59:04 <_sj_> np
  22:59:06 <kim_register> dannyisme, you've been asked to state them :-)
  22:59:09 <Talrias> for one thing
  22:59:09 <_sj_> <scrolls>
  22:59:14 <EuropracBHIT> To run Wikimania and other events.
  22:59:22 <Talrias> why can't the community do that by itself?
  22:59:33 <dannyisme> ok
  22:59:37 <EuropracBHIT> Because there's special expertise that needs to be considered with event management.

process II (dannyisme, TOR_CNR)

  22:59:41 <dannyisme> lets go through your resolutions one by one
  22:59:42 <Angela> Talrias: because the community doesn't have access to the bank account for a start.
  22:59:44 <Trickstar> they can't pay for the flight-tickets ;)
 : 22:59 PART: romihaitza
  22:59:49 <Xirzon> Talrias: Ideally, the committee would be open to interested members of the community who could either have delegated authority or advisor status.
  22:59:52 <dannyisme> and i must clarify that i can ONLY speak for myself
  22:59:58 <NullC> Talrias�:� because the community isn't the foundation and doesn't have the checkbook? Ah as Angela says.
  23:00:01 <dannyisme> not for michael, brad, soufron or anyone else
  23:00:06 <brion> Talrias: $$$ <- someone has to deal with this stuff.
  23:00:15 <Talrias> this may seem obvious to you but it has to be explained to other people :)
  23:00:17 <kim_register> OK! Danny has the floor, QUIET!
  23:00:28 <kim_register> we will have order in this meeting, or the order will be imposed
  23:00:31 <kim_register> ORDER!
  23:00:39 <NullC> Talrias�:� There are some activities which confer legal liability, it would be foolish to simply delegate them to the 'community'.
  23:00:42 <kim_register> <grin, I love this>
  23:00:44 <soufron> pliz
  23:00:45 <Trickstar> :)
  23:00:45 <soufron> pliz
  23:00:46 <dannyisme> <Angela>   1. Every committee shall submit a report to the Board monthly.
  23:00:46 <dannyisme> <Angela>    2. Committee members conduct their activities publicly wherever possible, using internal means of communication only when confidentiality is required.
  23:00:46 <dannyisme> <Angela>    3. Committee membership shall be an open and transparent process, with all committee members being informed of changes to membership, and outsiders understanding how they may join the committee.
  23:00:50 <dannyisme> <Angela>   1. Every committee shall submit a report to the Board monthly.
  23:00:50 <dannyisme> <Angela>    2. Committee members conduct their activities publicly wherever possible, using internal means of communication only when confidentiality is required.
  23:00:50 <dannyisme> <Angela>    3. Committee membership shall be an open and transparent process, with all committee members being informed of changes to membership, and outsiders understanding how they may join the committee.
 23:00 JOIN: TimShell
 23:00 MODE: +v TimShell by: Talrias
  23:01:10 <EuropracBHIT> Oh good two board members.
  23:01:22 <dannyisme> I will start with saying that today is the first time i actually saw that proposal
  23:01:28 <delphine> ditto
 23:01 Action: *kim_register gives EuropracBHIT *that look*
  23:01:33 <Talrias> dannyisme: could you just explain what you just quoted
  23:01:34 <bawolff> Why not have the board as more a figurehead, which gets asked to do stuff by the comunity (or absolutly open membership of commeties)?
  23:01:36 <dannyisme> i had never seen it before
  23:01:42 <soufron> ditto
  23:01:45 <kim_register> Ok, dannyisme has the floor
  23:01:54 <dannyisme> because board proposals are made on the board wiki, and I do not have access to that
  23:01:56 <kim_register> let dannyisme speak :-)
  23:01:58 <dannyisme> i am not board
 : 23:02 PART: Jeandre
  23:02:22 <dannyisme> I support the first part of the resolution
  23:02:29 <dannyisme> regarding monthly reports
  23:02:33 <mav> me too
  23:02:42 <dannyisme> though i would say that perhaps bi monthly would be better
  23:02:48 <AlisonW> bawolff: you cannot have "absolutely open membership" given that there are legal ramifications of what the comittees are expected to do. 
  23:02:50 <dannyisme> a monthly report is a lot of work
  23:03:08 <NullC> Will the board even read monthlys from a dozen groups? :) We should stagger them.
  23:03:11 <dannyisme> as for part two
  23:03:18 <bawolff> so they then ask the figurehead to do what they've reached the conclussion to do
  23:03:22 <mav> NullC ; good point
  23:03:26 <dannyisme> i see committees involved in two activities
  23:03:34 <dannyisme> 1. Deliberations, 2. Voting
  23:03:38 <AlisonW> "..shall submit a report monthly unless it meets less frequently, in which case it shall submit a report no more than one week after each meeting "
  23:03:49 <dannyisme> I am a firm believer in the secret ballot
  23:03:54 <WiseWoman> But if there is no monthly report, people forget to report on what they are doing, and then we are at quarterly reports, which is too slow.
  23:03:55 <kim_register> AlisonW, we're at point 2 for dannyisme now, you'll get the floor next, if you like :-)
  23:04:05 <dannyisme> i dont want people to be afraid to vote because of what people might think of them
  23:04:12 <dannyisme> i am good friends with delphine
  23:04:15 <kim_register> WiseWoman, same as for AlisonW 
  23:04:17 <dannyisme> but sometimes we disagree
  23:04:30 <NullC> dannyisme�:� But the groups are not elected, they are appointed. Their job is to do the right thing, even if it is unpopular.
  23:04:46 <NullC> Or do I misunderstand?
  23:04:50 <Xirzon> NullC: the organizers are appointed
  23:04:50 <Trickstar> shhhh
  23:04:59 <kim_register> keep the chatter down to a dull roar :-)
  23:05:00 <dannyisme> yes, but that is the basis of secret balloting
  23:05:07 <dannyisme> it gives people freedom to vote
  23:05:09 <dannyisme> as for deliberations
  23:05:10 <bawolff> who decides the what the right thing is if its unpopular?
  23:05:18 <dannyisme> that would depend on the type of deliberation
  23:05:20 <dannyisme> for instance
  23:05:38 <dannyisme> if i were to tell brion i wanted to take part in all the server discussions, he would not be happy
  23:05:49 <dannyisme> because frankly, i know nothing about the topic
  23:05:50 <soufron> case-by-case
  23:05:52 <kim_register> brion, would you? 
  23:05:52 <mav> I kinda like to know who is voting for what so I can guage what their motives might be
  23:06:03 <brion> that would be a pain ;)
  23:06:09 <dannyisme> i make a point of not commenting on legal matters because i am not a lawyer
 23:06 JOIN: Pomi
  23:06:15 <kim_register> mav, and create consensus? You're 3rd to speak next :-)
  23:06:25 <dannyisme> similarly, there are financial matters i am not qualified to speak about, so i dont
  23:06:29 <Angela> It's more important to have the reasons for a vote public than the vote itself. Otherwise things will just happen and no one will have a clue why they happened.
  23:06:34 <Xirzon> People generally do not apply for access to meetings where their opinion is not relevant. They can be excluded by vote if they become a problem.
  23:06:41 <NullC> If we do not know the views of the members will will just have to punish all of them for the mistakes of the majority. 
  23:06:46 <dannyisme> in fact i asked mav that my name be removed from teh finance committee proposed
  23:07:01 <kim_register> though looking in on a meeting to see if things are well regular, should be ok
  23:07:02 <dannyisme> so, there are some things which require specialists
  23:07:08 <carlmb> voting may not always be the answer...
  23:07:12 <dannyisme> other things may or may not require confidentiality
  23:07:13 <NullC> Angela�:� They happened because the people on the committee decided for them to happen.
  23:07:25 <dannyisme> i think we all agree that if they require confidentiality, they should be confidential
  23:07:32 <mav> dannyisme ; if grants are to be part of the FC, then you need to be part of the FC :)
  23:07:41 <kim_register> Ok
  23:07:51 <dannyisme> if they do not require confidentiality they can certainly be discussed openly
  23:07:53 <kim_register> who else had things to say about point 2 of dannys?
  23:08:00 <Erik_Zachte> I feel organizers should be chosen by and from among the members of the committee
  23:08:00 <dannyisme> does that answer point B?
  23:08:02 <Erik_Zachte> otherwise this is just a delegation of tasks by the board, not a step towards more democracy
  23:08:08 <soufron> people people
  23:08:15 <soufron> you are talking about the goals of these committees
  23:08:17 <mav> democracy?!
  23:08:18 <carlmb> and there's a difference between taking active part in conversations, and having access to them
  23:08:24 <NullC> Erik_Zachte�:� Whoever said this was intended to be anything but mere delegation?
  23:08:28 <dannyisme> Point 3
  23:08:31 <kim_register> ok, soufron has the floor, then dannyisme point 3
  23:08:34 <soufron> when the board should only vote about when they will meet and how they will be allowed to do things
  23:08:35 <dannyisme> wait
  23:08:37 <kim_register> dannyisme, right with you
  23:08:37 <Trickstar> erik: noone wants democracy in WP
  23:08:42 <mav> the foundation is a corporation, not a democracy
  23:08:46 <dannyisme> point three which is the most contriversial point
  23:08:55 <kim_register> and we have many people wanting to discuss it
  23:09:01 <Erik_Zachte> NullC, just wishfull thinking then :)
 23:09 Action: *Talrias thinks we should let dannyisme finihsh :)
  23:09:04 <dannyisme> all committee members being informed of changes to membership,
  23:09:05 <kim_register> ORDER!
  23:09:07 <dannyisme> agreed
  23:09:21 <dannyisme> outsiders understanding how they may join the committee.
  23:09:25 <dannyisme> agreed with a caveat
  23:09:25 <TOR_CNR> *nod*
  23:09:31 <dannyisme> the committee has a right to say no
  23:09:38 <Xirzon> dannyisme: how would it do so?
  23:09:42 <soufron> it's very simple
  23:09:44 <NullC> I don't agree that we should have groups with delegated board power unless the board approves of all the members.
  23:09:47 <RedDevil666> bye all
 :"So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish!" 23:09 PART: RedDevil666
  23:09:51 <soufron> members of the committee will have to learn to vote NO
  23:09:52 <dannyisme> i can beg brion all day and even threaten not to mail him his check if he doesnt put me on his server committee
  23:09:53 <TimStarling> corporations can be democratic, I've consistently argued for democracy in wikimedia since it was founded, and I've done so with support from Florida statutes on non-profit corporations
  23:09:57 <soufron> when something is stupid
  23:10:00 <soufron> when something is not open 
  23:10:04 <soufron> when something is bad
  23:10:07 <soufron> you just vote NO
  23:10:15 <soufron> whether it is the proposal of your friend or not
  23:10:17 <kim_register> TimStarling, :-)
  23:10:19 <TimStarling>
  23:10:21 <soufron> because that's a job
  23:10:22 <Xirzon> dannyisme: are you saying you would want brion alone to make the decision who joins the committee?
  23:10:24 <kim_register> soufron, wise :-)
  23:10:24 <Talrias> i'm not sure that dannyisme has finished yet
  23:10:26 <soufron> and not some funny thing
  23:10:30 <kim_register> Ok!
  23:10:32 <kim_register> dannyisme...
  23:10:32 <dannyisme> but brion should have the right to say, Danny, you are an idiot when it comes to servers--stop wasting our time
  23:10:35 <dannyisme> i would accept that
  23:10:35 <soufron> the board will have to learn how to vote NO also
  23:10:35 <NullC> TimStarling�:� And what does the law say about votes from sockpuppets? :) 
  23:10:39 <soufron> in order to refuse delegations
  23:10:43 <dannyisme> ok
  23:10:48 <dannyisme> now, as for the tough part
  23:10:49 <soufron> and when a proposal is wrong
  23:10:52 <soufron> it will get rejected
  23:10:54 <mav> corporations can be democratic, yes, but that does not mean they need to be democracies
  23:10:58 <kim_register> Ok, dannyisme has the floor for 3 more minutes
  23:11:01 <kim_register> 3 minutes to danny
  23:11:01 <Angela> soufron: rejected by who?
  23:11:04 <soufron> and it will proposed in a revised version (or not) a few meetings later
  23:11:06 <dannyisme> committee membership as an open and transparent process
  23:11:12 <dannyisme> i have no idea what it means
  23:11:14 <soufron> Angela, by the subcomittee, the committee, or the board
  23:11:21 <Talrias> dannyisme: it means that there would be a list of members somewhere
  23:11:26 <dannyisme> if it means anyone who wants to be on the committee should be on it, then no
  23:11:26 <mav> I'm with Danny
  23:11:32 <delphine> ditto
  23:11:34 <dannyisme> obviously not
  23:11:36 <Xirzon> dannyisme: of course not. that cannot work because of delegated authority
  23:11:37 <kim_register> Angela, soufron, let danny finish, then we'll discuss point 3 :-)
  23:11:39 <dannyisme> for instance
  23:11:42 <soufron> dannyisme, you're rigbht
  23:11:45 <dannyisme> the executive committee
  23:11:52 <Talrias> from committee membership should be open and transparent, I read it as saying that "there should be a public membership list"
  23:11:53 <Angela> Dannyisme: I meant there would be certain procedures to allow people to join a committee. It wouldn't just be people chosen by some secret means.
  23:12:03 <Trickstar> order! :)
  23:12:11 <soufron> what is secret ? 
  23:12:11 <dannyisme> if everyone here decided that they should be on the executive committee, that would be pandemonium and irresponsible
  23:12:12 <kim_register> Trickstar, :-)
  23:12:19 <soufron> Angela, you are at the board
  23:12:26 <soufron> Angela, if things are beginning to become too secret
  23:12:28 <dannyisme> to be legally responsible, you must be of a certain age
 23:12 JOIN: eia-study
  23:12:29 <Angela> This arose when Anthere found herself removed from the trademark committee with NO reason given and no transparency as to why that had happened.
  23:12:32 <soufron> Angela, you just retire their delegation
  23:12:34 <dannyisme> you must state your name publicly
  23:12:38 <dannyisme> that is required by law
 23:12 JOIN: rory096
  23:12:48 <dannyisme> in fact, in the first election, i barred node
  23:12:49 <soufron> there is no secrecy in all of this
  23:12:53 <dannyisme> not because i dont like him
  23:12:53 <AlisonW> IF a committee is for "discussion" then an at-large membership is no problem and a good thing, but where it has "delegated (legal) authority" then it *mnust* have the approval of the board!
  23:12:58 <dannyisme> but because he was 14
  23:13:06 <Talrias> dannyisme: what election
  23:13:07 <dannyisme> as for membership and open discussion
  23:13:09 <Talrias> >
  23:13:09 <soufron> Angela, no, she asked me to step off the tm committee ! 
  23:13:10 <Talrias> ?
  23:13:12 <Xirzon> dannyisme: you're referring to the board election, I take it
  23:13:12 <dannyisme> it depends on the topic
  23:13:16 <dannyisme> yes
  23:13:18 <TOR_CNR> soufron, Angela, hush. let the man speak.
  23:13:20 <soufron> Angela, because she was pregnang and because I am a Lawyer and she's not
  23:13:23 <dannyisme> if it is confidential, then no
  23:13:31 <dannyisme> no one would discuss legal matters openly
  23:13:35 <dannyisme> that is irresponsible
  23:13:41 <mav> exactly
  23:13:45 <dannyisme> no one should start discussing grant negotiations openly
  23:13:46 <Xirzon> dannyisme: what does this have to do with membership?
  23:14:01 <dannyisme> no one should start discussing trademark issues openly
  23:14:04 <dannyisme> everything
  23:14:09 <kim_register> ok danny, 3 minutes are done :-)
  23:14:13 <Xirzon> The question is simple: Why not have every committee decide by 75% majority of its members whom to choose as new members?
  23:14:13 <dannyisme> it has everything to do with membership
  23:14:15 <Angela> No one is saying they should.
  23:14:29 <dannyisme> to do that, you have to have a committee first
  23:14:32 <kim_register> Xirzon, time for nomic!
  23:14:35 <dannyisme> we are not deciding membership
  23:14:35 <kim_register> Alright
  23:14:41 <dannyisme> we are creating infrastructure
  23:14:41 <soufron> Xirzon, and because members of the committee will do it themselves
  23:14:44 <kim_register> Okay, let's get some order back into this
  23:14:49 <mav> 75%? too low ; all should agree
  23:14:58 <Xirzon> soufron: The Board should ensure that we do not evolve to local dictatorships
  23:15:00 <dannyisme> let the members decide how to accept new members
  23:15:00 <kim_register> I'll use +v to at least show who technically has the floor, since we're at -m
  23:15:03 <Xirzon> mav: 75% is the steward threshold, seems to work fine there
  23:15:05 <elian> all members have to work together
  23:15:06 <dannyisme> let there be an application process
  23:15:06 <kim_register> TOR_CNR has asked for the floor
  23:15:08 <NullC> There needs to be a clear statement of what this is and isn't.   As best I can tell it should sound like "Whereas the Wikimedia Foundation's Board gets very little done we have discovered the need to delegate some of our authority.  This change is not intended change the character of the foundation governance, it is only an attempt to meet the demands of the workload placed on the foundation."
  23:15:08 <dannyisme> do it orderly
  23:15:11 <Xirzon> mav: 100% consensus is hardly ever possible
  23:15:12 <soufron> Xirzon, that's why the board can take back any delegations at any time
  23:15:15 <TOR_CNR> ekhm... may I?
 23:15 MODE: -vvvv _sj_ by: kim_register
 23:15 MODE: -vvvv delphine by: kim_register
 23:15 MODE: -vvvv NullC by: kim_register
 23:15 MODE: -vv TOR_CNR by: kim_register
  23:15:24 <dannyisme> i am finished with my speech
  23:15:27 <soufron> ... ? 
 23:15 MODE: +v TOR_CNR by: kim_register
  23:15:32 <kim_register> TOR_CNR, you're on
  23:15:37 <TOR_CNR> thanks kim
  23:16:02 <TOR_CNR> together with delphine I've worked on the forming of the Chapters committee
 : 23:16 PART: eia-study
  23:16:06 <akl> just a question: does anyone think that this meeting leads to anything?
  23:16:07 <kim_register> (once again, this channel is -m, so +v is just a loose flag, I'll use it to indicate who technically is speaking, even if there's a lot of chatter
  23:16:18 <Erik_Zachte> cooptation in a 100% approval mode sound very mcuh like communist party leadership
  23:16:23 <TOR_CNR> and I'd just like to say a few words on the "open membershipt" issue
  23:16:24 <Xirzon> Erik_Zachte: agreed
  23:16:25 <kim_register> akl, we're going per the agenda quickly
  23:16:31 <LeBron> akl> no
 23:16 JOIN: jwales
  23:16:36 <Talrias> lo jwales 
  23:16:36 <Xirzon> akl: yes, hopefully
 23:16 JOIN: eia-study
  23:16:47 <Datrio> TOR, go on, better type faster ;)
  23:16:50 <TOR_CNR> first: yes to a public list of members, their names and everything that danny mentioned
  23:16:55 <Talrias> guys, TOR_CNR has the floor, be polite :)
  23:16:56 <akl> Xirzon: good luck ;)
  23:17:00 <NullC> jwales�:� Welcome. We've voted to disban wikimedia while you were out. 
  23:17:04 <Xirzon> hello jimbo
  23:17:16 <TOR_CNR> second: no to "whoever wants to join, joins".
  23:17:19 <Erik_Zachte> hi jimmy
  23:17:28 <jwales> hi!
  23:17:31 <Xirzon> TOR_CNR: how about advisors who can participate in open meetings, but have no voting rights?
  23:17:34 <kim_register> okay, quiet :-)
  23:17:36 <TOR_CNR> I believe Coms should be limited as far as the number of members goes
  23:17:46 <jwales> NullC: good, so I can go back to running wikipedia ;-)
  23:17:50 <Trickstar> :)
  23:17:53 <TOR_CNR> simply because if there are too many people
  23:17:58 <TOR_CNR> there is chaos
  23:18:01 <NullC> jwales�:� Yes sir. Get some bloody work done!
  23:18:02 <TOR_CNR> just like here ;)
  23:18:18 <Xirzon> TOR_CNR: Yes, that's why you form subcommittees.
  23:18:27 <GerardM> jwales, who is running the other shops then ?
  23:18:28 <kim_register> Ok, TOR needs some more quiet to get his point across!
  23:18:30 <TOR_CNR> wiat, wait :)
  23:18:33 <kim_register> GerardM, Hush!
  23:18:42 <dannyisme> Xirzon, you cant form subcommittees until you have committees
  23:18:43 <TOR_CNR> Xirzon: if we do that
  23:18:44 <NullC> Xirzon�:� So every random troll should be able to demand a voice?
  23:18:50 <NullC> To me that does not sound productive.
  23:18:53 <TOR_CNR> we just have more and more useless structure
  23:19:01 <TOR_CNR> now... Angela has laid out some basic concepts without really explaining
  23:19:03 <TOR_CNR> what she meant
  23:19:05 <Xirzon> NullC: we should assume good faith, and exclude people when they become a problem
 23:19 MODE: +m  by: kim_register
  23:19:10 <kim_register> (ORDER!)
 23:19 MODE: -m  by: kim_register
  23:19:19 <Erik_Zachte> NullC, like with board voting we have filters and thresholds
  23:19:24 <TOR_CNR> danny explianed how he understands what she wrote
  23:19:30 <TOR_CNR> and I just did the same
  23:19:34 <soufron> Xirzon, then assume good faith from the committees and allow the board to reject them when they become a problem
  23:19:45 <TOR_CNR> now I'd like to hear Angela's comment on this
  23:19:49 <Xirzon> soufron: it's dangerous to assume good faith once you start handing out authority :)
  23:19:49 <kim_register> soufron, Xirzon -> side channel
 23:19 JOIN: Celestianpower
  23:19:53 <dannyisme> I want to clarify something first
  23:19:57 <dannyisme> there is a big misunderstanding
  23:20:04 <kim_register> dannyisme, you're next after TOR_CNR 
  23:20:14 <dannyisme> whoops, sorry
  23:20:17 <mav> kim - I though I was
  23:20:20 <mav> t
  23:20:25 <TOR_CNR> dannyisme: go ahead :)
  23:20:30 <dannyisme> thanks TOR
  23:20:39 <kim_register> mav, Okay, dannyisme, tor, mav :-)
  23:20:41 <dannyisme> i want to clarify something very important
  23:20:50 <dannyisme> i am for openness insofar as possible
  23:20:56 <dannyisme> i am for keeping people informed
  23:21:06 <kim_register> (I'm sure I'm missing folks in the scroll here, please pipe up after mav so you get your turn)
 23:21 JOIN: John123
  23:21:07 <dannyisme> and i am for consulting with the community for ideas
  23:21:09 <dannyisme> BUT
  23:21:17 <dannyisme> i am also for responsibility
  23:21:27 <dannyisme> i am also for people will to take responsibility
  23:21:28 <Xirzon> kim_register: can I get 3 minutes soon?
  23:21:47 <dannyisme> i am for people dealing with the day to day issues, and not just the grandiose ideas
  23:21:51 <dannyisme> for instance
  23:21:55 <kim_register> (xirzon, ok, after mav I think)
  23:22:06 <dannyisme> you can talk all you want in a fundraising committee about bold ideas
  23:22:09 <dannyisme> to raise money
 23:22 JOIN: John123
  23:22:18 <dannyisme> but at the end of teh day, someone has to send out receipts
  23:22:30 <dannyisme> and that is something a committee is responsible for too
  23:22:46 <dannyisme> and its boring and unglamorous
 : 23:22 PART: TiteSeverinette
  23:22:53 <dannyisme> and it was done on time this year
  23:23:04 <kim_register> (dannyisme, we have a lineup, so... )

on work (mav, Xirzon, Erik Zachte, Talrias, Angela)

  23:23:07 <dannyisme> so lets understand what committees are
  23:23:17 <dannyisme> not just the glamor but the nitty gritty too
 23:23 JOIN: VampWillow
  23:23:21 <dannyisme> and i am done again
  23:23:29 <kim_register> Okay, tor next
  23:23:30 <Angela> If a committee can't or won't do it, they either need more members, or they need to put together a budget to employ someone to do it.
  23:23:39 <kim_register> Okay
  23:23:49 <mav> I agree with Angela
  23:24:04 <TOR_CNR> kim_register: I have a bit of an emergency here on pl so just go on... ;)
  23:24:10 <GerardM> when a committee cannot of will not do it they should give their authority back
  23:24:12 <NullC> Angela�:� Is it that simple? does the board just need more members? Why not skip the committee step if adding people solves problems?
  23:24:13 <dannyisme> the answer isnt throwing people at the problem but throwing the right people
  23:24:13 <Talrias> ok, mav's turn
  23:24:24 <kim_register> Alright, Mav, you have the floor
 23:24 MODE: +v-v mav by: Talrias
 23:24 MODE: -v TOR_CNR by: kim_register
  23:24:39 <mav> is this supposed to be about a specific point, or anthing? 
  23:24:48 <Talrias> up to you
  23:24:48 <Angela> NullC: that's being considered as well. There is a board expansion committee.
  23:24:52 <kim_register> you asked for 3 minutes, you got them
 23:24 MODE: +v mav by: kim_register
  23:25:00 <mav> I'm worried aobut where all the work will get done
  23:25:18 <mav> whether or not this will be on separate private wikis
  23:25:24 <mav> on just internal, meta
  23:25:26 <mav> whatnot
  23:25:40 <kim_register> alright, would you like to have answers to that?
  23:25:56 <Angela> If it's not confidential, I strongly suggest putting anything draft or in progress on meta, and anything finalised and presentable on the foundation wiki.
  23:26:06 <elian> agreed
  23:26:14 <mav> I'd like all the confidential stuff to be on internalwiki, all the open stuff to be on meta
  23:26:20 <mav> not other wikis except for board
  23:26:23 <elian> mav: doesn't work for press
  23:26:30 <dannyisme> i gree with angela and elian 
  23:26:32 <dannyisme> agree
  23:26:37 <elian> except you're willing to open up internal for 30 more people
  23:26:37 <mav> otherwise everybody will be in their own shell and not talk to each other
 23:26 JOIN: Ugur_Basak
  23:26:41 <Xirzon> mav: I'd be in favor of gradual implementation of better access controls on internal, as you know.
  23:26:53 <Xirzon> We might even want to use a different software than MediaWiki if access control turns out to be too much of a problem.
  23:26:56 <soufron> all of this is com-pli-ca-ted
  23:27:03 <soufron> and we need things done... yesterday
  23:27:15 <soufron> actually, the board was supposed to vote before the end of january
  23:27:22 <soufron> actually...
  23:27:37 <Trickstar> that's quite soon :)
  23:27:39 <TimStarling> I suggested using different software for internal a long time ago, but people complained that it would be too hard to learn how to use
  23:27:48 <Datrio> really?
  23:27:50 <Datrio> I didn't see it Tim
  23:27:51 <Angela> for those who don't know, there are currently a number of private wikis - internal (accessable by the board, chapter boards, people with official positions, and some lawyers), board (for board members + one legal counsel), and grants (not in use)
  23:27:52 <soufron> well
  23:27:52 <mav> What I NEED, is to know where the FC will do its confidential work
  23:28:03 <kim_register> Ok, I had 5 mins down for mav...
  23:28:15 <soufron> mav, actually, the FC will be able to decide it by himself
 23:28 JOIN: SimonP
  23:28:23 <soufron> mav, under the supervision of the board
  23:28:42 <mav> soufron, but 3 potential members of the FC do not have access to InternalWiki
  23:28:44 <_sj_> hoy simon
  23:28:54 <soufron> mav, then, it should be somewhere else... 
  23:29:01 <soufron> mav, or they should get access
  23:29:03 <mav> bad idea
  23:29:04 <Angela> who should decide who gets access to the internal wiki?
  23:29:13 <mav> having it somewhere else that is
  23:29:16 <kim_register> mav, they can think up an internal mailing list, or what have they :-)
  23:29:18 <kim_register> alright...
  23:29:23 <Xirzon> Angela: All members of the core committees created through the resolutions should be given access.
  23:29:24 <kim_register> can we wrap up for mav?
  23:29:27 <soufron> mav, but that's also something the fc can ask later on you see ? 
  23:29:46 <mav> other member of the organizaiton need to be aware of the reports we are drafting and they need to help with budgeting
  23:29:49 <kim_register> Okay, that's something that probably needs to be discussed in detail at some point
  23:29:53 <kim_register> preferably on the mailing list
 23:30 JOIN: javiercarro
  23:30:05 <Angela> One solution would be to have a set of "board-approved" members on each committee who can access internal, and a wider open membership that doesn't.
  23:30:06 <Talrias> have we discussed decision-making processes?
  23:30:20 <kim_register> Talrias, you want some time ?
  23:30:27 <Erik_Zachte> no, i have some on that
  23:30:27 <Talrias> not just yet thanks kim
  23:30:28 <Xirzon> Angela: Members could be board-approved or ExecCom-approved in addition to being committee-approved
  23:30:34 <Angela> Yes.
  23:30:39 <kim_register> Alright, mav, do you have at least the partial answers you need?
  23:30:44 <Talrias> hmmm, actually kim
  23:31:00 <mav> Angela ; my idea would be to have committee members have that access, but volunteers only to have access to public lists and wikis
  23:31:06 <Trickstar> let's postpone the technical details of realization...
  23:31:08 <kim_register> Talrias, Okay, msg me :-)
  23:31:16 <soufron> any-thing is possible
  23:31:18 <Talrias> message you what?
  23:31:20 <kim_register> Okay.
  23:31:21 <mav> kim ; kinda
  23:31:26 <elian> mav: doesn't work for CC
  23:31:28 <soufron> but only the board will decide who it delegates to
  23:31:30 <kim_register> we do need to move on, I don't know who needs to goto bed soon
 23:31 MODE: -v mav by: kim_register
  23:31:39 <soufron> I need to go to bed soon
  23:31:41 <soufron> it's late
  23:31:42 <Talrias> can we move the discussion onto the next item in teh agenda?
 23:31 MODE: +v Xirzon by: kim_register
  23:31:50 <Xirzon> thanks, kim :)
  23:31:56 <kim_register> Ok, Xirzon, floor for 3 minutes
  23:31:56 <LeBron> you mean the first item?
  23:31:57 <Xirzon> OK.
  23:32:04 <Xirzon> Wikimedia with its many endeavors - Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikicommons, Wikinews, Wikispecies(!) -, with its 100 languages, can only succeed if we empower as many people as possible to build a human network of specialists, and to establish thousands (yes, thousands) of partnerships related to these projects.
 23:32 JOIN: verdy_p
  23:32:17 <Xirzon> We have taken on these projects, and we have a responsibility to our best to make them an incredible success.
  23:32:25 <kim_register> (so much for the agenda, but at least we get things talked about :-P)
  23:32:31 <Xirzon> We need to talk to people who are experts at lexicology, journalism, taxonomy, etc. - expertise related to each of our projects.
  23:32:45 <Xirzon> As much as I respect the current members of the SP committee, they do not have the competence or the manpower to pull off this level of networking, especially as they also have additional responsibilities.
  23:32:47 <mav> WikiCouncil?
  23:32:49 <verdy_p> hi all! I missed the begining
  23:32:54 <Xirzon> mav: The ExecCom could be very similar.
  23:32:55 <Talrias> Xirzon: SP?
  23:32:57 <kim_register> verdy_p, Ok, Xirzon has the floor for 3 :-)
  23:33:00 <Xirzon> Talrias: Special Projects
  23:33:05 <Xirzon> This necessitates having groups which are as open _as possible_. Of course you cannot delegate authority to anyone who comes along. And of course you have to be able to exclude trolls. And of course you have to keep some things confidential.
  23:33:08 <kim_register> verdy_p, keep noise down to a dull roar
  23:33:19 <Xirzon> Limiting a group to specialists is not the problem. The right people will want to join, in any case. You can exclude trolls later.
  23:33:27 <Xirzon> However, a 100% consensus for membership - that will not work.
  23:33:34 <soufron> if you say there should be places were anybody can discuss
  23:33:36 <soufron> you already have it
  23:33:38 <Xirzon>  As an example, Danny has made it quite clear that he is opposed to both me and GerardM, and I do not see why his voice alone should keep me from being a part of, for example, the Special Projects committee.
  23:33:38 <mav> xirzon ; let's not conflate the community with the organzation
  23:33:40 <soufron> it's called internet
  23:33:43 <soufron> anyone can come 
  23:33:46 <soufron> and open a new page
  23:33:48 <soufron> and hop
  23:33:48 <NullC> Xirzon�:� 'exclude trolls later' has almost completely failed us.
  23:33:54 <soufron> you have people talking together
  23:33:57 <soufron> and it's open
  23:34:03 <soufron> if you mean, taking decisions
  23:34:04 <soufron> ...
  23:34:06 <soufron> then...
  23:34:07 <soufron> sorry
  23:34:10 <Xirzon> soufron: delegated authority, yes.
  23:34:16 <soufron> then it's different
  23:34:17 <Xirzon> soufron: that is your legal point of view. this is my point of view.
  23:34:20 <Xirzon> I have a track record in the organization and would like to help. I think a 75% approval is more than sufficient to let me -- and others in my situation -- join.
  23:34:21 <soufron> yes
  23:34:27 <soufron> but the WMF is a florida based legal entity
  23:34:33 <soufron> with a (small) budget
  23:34:33 <Xirzon> What I propose is a standard of 75% approval for new members, regular open meetings, open reports, use of confidential places only when necessary.  Furthermore, every committee should have advisors - anyone who wants to - who can participate in open meetings, propose resolutions, but do not have access to confidential information and cannot vote.
  23:34:38 <Xirzon> soufron: delegation of authority to committees is possible.
  23:34:41 <soufron> and a few signatures
  23:34:43 <NullC> Xirzon�:� A great many processes on Wikipedia have already been abandoned by the most skilled people who grew tired of the endless stream of both trolls and people who intended well but whos ability to yabber far exceeded their understanding.
 23:34 JOIN: Physchim62
  23:34:48 <Xirzon> our budget will grow as we allow more and more people to participate.
  23:34:54 <soufron> what you suggest
  23:34:57 <soufron> is called a spaceship
  23:34:59 <GerardM> soufron there is more money possible than we currently take in
  23:35:06 <Xirzon> NullC: I have had no problem with trolling in the Wikimedia Research Network.
  23:35:06 <AlisonW> Xirzon ... 75% is fine until you get to something requiring *legal* authority. Then it *has* to be an absolute
  23:35:06 <soufron> it's cool
  23:35:14 <soufron> I guess it's exactly the NASA is working today
 23:35 JOIN: SimonP_
  23:35:23 <soufron> that's why they are not able to go to the moon anymore :)
  23:35:25 <Xirzon> AlisonW: not as long as these decisions are taken by the committee as a whole.
  23:35:26 <soufron> I am just joking
  23:35:27 <Xirzon> by vote.
  23:35:38 <soufron> but your proposal is way too complicated
  23:35:44 <Xirzon> Why is it, Jean-Baptiste?
 23:35 JOIN: AutisticPsycho
  23:36:01 <Xirzon> In addition, I want an Executive Committee which has project-level representation and is elected by the community, to have at least some level of democratic processes.
  23:36:03 <mav> start simple, we can muck things with with complexity later
  23:36:09 <soufron> I want things to be simple
  23:36:13 <Xirzon> mav: having clear procedures for membership is simple
  23:36:14 <soufron> so it will be efficient
  23:36:17 <soufron> soon
  23:36:20 <Xirzon> having every committee make its own secret little club rules is complicated.
  23:36:23 <soufron> and so we'll actually begin working
  23:36:27 <AlisonW> Xirzon ... still no though unless you enforce that at least 50% (or some other number) has to be "official"
  23:36:30 <soufron> Xirzon, then the board will reject them
  23:36:37 <soufron> Xirzon, or ask them to put it public
  23:36:43 <mav> project level? Again, the community is a different thing from the organizaiton
  23:36:49 <kim_register> Ok, this sounds like a very tricky situation
  23:36:51 <soufron> Xirzon, or as a member of this committee you will put a proposal so that its rules get public
  23:36:54 <soufron> that simple
  23:36:57 <Xirzon> mav: the community should be represented and promoted by the organization.
  23:37:01 <kim_register> which we could have an entire discussion on :-)
 : 23:37 PART: nach0king
  23:37:10 <soufron> if a committee is too closed, then you put up a proposal to open it, and you get it voted
  23:37:19 <Xirzon> soufron: Why not have them open from the beginning? Simple.
  23:37:20 <mav> 2 community reps on the board
  23:37:20 <kim_register> I do happen to agree with xirzon that we should have open participation as far as possible :-)
  23:37:24 <mav> as it should be
  23:37:32 <Xirzon> That's exactly what the resolutions are aimed at.
  23:37:33 <kim_register> perhaps multiple community reps
  23:37:40 <soufron> Xirzon, because it's a different problem
  23:37:44 <kim_register> unfortunately, we have a lineup, we can come to this point some more later
  23:37:47 <soufron> Xirzon, our problem is to create the commiteee
  23:37:55 <soufron> not to decide what they will do exactly
  23:38:01 <Xirzon> soufron: then let's create them, and let's have the board resolution proposed by angela to guarantee openness.
  23:38:04 <mav> can we just concentrate on the committees?
  23:38:10 <elian> soufron: both can't be done independently
 23:38 Action: *Talrias would like to say something about decision making
  23:38:15 <NullC> Why would we require a greater (or lesser) level of openness from the committies than we require from the board from which the recieve their authority?
  23:38:16 <Xirzon> That's exactly what I am talking about, mav.
  23:38:21 <Erik_Zachte> dannyism:
  23:38:22 <Erik_Zachte> there is a fine line between taking  responsibility and 'let's do it my way' 
  23:38:24 <Erik_Zachte> this line is easily crossed, or better said shifts unnoticed when time goes by
  23:38:25 <Erik_Zachte> all:
  23:38:27 <Erik_Zachte> as stated before I'm not fully happy with how the boards authority evolved from
  23:38:28 <Erik_Zachte> 'let's have a board for outside representation'
  23:38:29 <soufron> elian, they can be done
  23:38:30 <Erik_Zachte> towards
  23:38:31 <Erik_Zachte> 'let vote for members now and define roles later on'
  23:38:33 <elian> how should I create a committee without exact specifications what its taks is?
  23:38:33 <Erik_Zachte> towards
  23:38:34 <Erik_Zachte> 'everything happens under control of the board, which is the de facto situation
  23:38:36 <Erik_Zachte> I have no personal problems with any board meber at all, but feel not at ease with the power structure
  23:38:37 <Erik_Zachte> I would like to see this situation improve towards distributed authority
  23:38:39 <Erik_Zachte> committees can help in achieving that
  23:38:41 <Erik_Zachte> I have no clear cut plan
  23:38:41 <soufron> elian, actually they are being done separately in every big organizations
  23:38:42 <Erik_Zachte> but want to throw this in in reaction to all statements that the board controls the committees
  23:38:49 <soufron> elian, because it's a completely different problem
  23:38:52 <Trickstar> erik has conquered the floor...
  23:39:00 <kim_register> Erik_Zachte, Ok, maybe we should save that for your slot!
  23:39:06 <soufron> elian, when you need to scale up
  23:39:12 <akl> elian: you did that yesterday, didn't you?
  23:39:15 <NullC> I am concerned that what little progress we could make with committees will be lost due to an attempt to repurpose them to the task of making the foundation governance more open.  
  23:39:25 <soufron> you change from authorizing stuff (a priori) to forbidding stuff (a posteriori)
  23:39:33 <kim_register> Ok, tell you what
  23:39:40 <kim_register> let's switch around
  23:39:43 <kim_register> Erik has made a clear statement
  23:39:48 <NullC> We should outright reject any attempt to abuse this new proposal as a back-door attempt to change the nature of foundation governance. 
  23:39:51 <kim_register> and the floor goest to erik zachte :-)
  23:39:52 <soufron> these committees simply need
  23:39:54 <jwales> Erik_Zachte: I am sympathetic with your view, but would like to add that from a legal point of view, there is no alternative to the board running the organization in the final analysis.  That's the law.
 23:39 MODE: -v Xirzon by: kim_register
 23:40 MODE: +v Erik_Zachte by: kim_register
  23:40:14 <soufron> NullC, definitely
  23:40:15 <kim_register> 5 minutes for responses to erik zachte
  23:40:23 <jwales> But in general, yes, absolutely, the point of this is to improve things toward distributed authority.
 23:40 Action: *cimon asks to speak (in turn)
  23:40:58 <Xirzon> jwales: Do you support Angela's and Anthere's resolution for a certain standard of openness on the committees?
  23:41:06 <mav> also, the board will be expanded 
  23:41:13 <NullC> jwales�:� Is it? Because we're getting mixed messages on that.  If this is really an effort to distribute things rather than simply scale the board, then it should be handled in a different way than some have proposed.
  23:41:35 <mav> openness should be through reporting and publishing of membership lists
  23:41:48 <soufron> the proposal is only to create committees who will get delegations of authority when needed, and only when needed
  23:41:51 <Xirzon> mav: it should also be through a minimum standard of participation.
  23:41:58 <Angela> Not only that. also opennes in *how* people get on the committees.
  23:42:00 <soufron> they will work the way they need to work
  23:42:10 <Erik_Zachte> jwales, thanks 
  23:42:10 <jwales> I'll wait my turn... I didn't mean to tak ethe floor.
  23:42:11 <Erik_Zachte> like  some time ago on foundation board this is meant as constructive statement
  23:42:13 <Erik_Zachte> now that we have only good people , lets strenthen the decision process for the long haul
  23:42:39 <mav> angela; the procedures to get on a committee can and should also be published, yes
  23:42:40 <soufron> what we need to write down, is only when they will meet and how they will vote
  23:42:54 <soufron> everything else is left to the board and the community
  23:43:06 <Xirzon> soufron: The Board can hold all committees to the same minimum standard.
  23:43:16 <Trickstar> as the committees have to be acknowledged by the board, rules for membership don't have to be too strong
  23:44:23 <kim_register> datrio for 3 minutes now
  23:44:24 <soufron> Xirzon, that's a different decision
  23:44:24 <mav> I agree - there should be minimum standards
  23:44:24 <Angela> That was the point of having a reolsution on openess, so that all committees would be held to that same standard rather than trying to make each committee separately agree to that.
 23:44 MODE: -v Erik_Zachte by: kim_register
  23:44:36 <Xirzon> Angela: makes sense to me.
  23:44:44 <soufron> Angela, it's perfectly possible, but good luck to write it
  23:44:49 <soufron> Angela, that should be done later
  23:44:57 <Talrias> who's next, kim?
  23:45:08 <soufron> Angela, because you can go back to the committees at any time and change their rules of functionning from above if you want to
  23:45:10 <kim_register> Ok, datrio can be skipped, Um, talrias, you I think
  23:45:13 <Talrias> ok :)
  23:45:16 <soufron> Angela, you're the board... you decide !
  23:45:18 <kim_register> you have +o, so no point in +v
  23:45:20 <Talrias> i'd like to just talk about decision making
  23:45:23 <Talrias> briefly
  23:45:24 <kim_register> keep it short, we got several people wanting to speak :-)
  23:45:27 <Talrias> i won't be long, I promise ;)
  23:45:39 <Talrias> firstly, I think that a mailing list would be ideal for discussing this kind of stuff
 23:45 JOIN: MiyamotoMusashi
  23:45:53 <Talrias> it's also far simpler to set up and make it public or private
  23:46:01 <Talrias> than doing technological wizardry with wikis
  23:46:11 <Talrias> i get that impression from reading brion's mails to the foundation list
  23:46:25 <Talrias> having a public and private mailing list for each committee would be a reasonable idea
  23:46:31 <Talrias> most discussion would take place on the public one
  23:46:32 <GerardM> one thing that I find disapointing is that these commitees are started and that it is not considered what is done for instance re WiktionaryZ
 23:46 Action: *kim_register waves to MiyamotoMusashi :-)
  23:46:41 <Talrias> and confidential stuff would be discussed on the private list
  23:46:43 <MiyamotoMusashi> Hello there kim_register
  23:46:51 <soufron> we are not yet on these details
  23:46:56 <soufron> having a private ml and a public one ? 
  23:46:59 <soufron> this is details
  23:47:02 <Talrias> obviously the ratio of discussion on each list would depend on the list
  23:47:03 <soufron> this depends on each committee
  23:47:04 <GerardM> there was a wiktionaryz commission before the committees were made public
  23:47:07 <mav> we already have plenty of public lists
  23:47:07 <Talrias> soufron, please, just let me speak
  23:47:14 <soufron> this is something to look at in a few weeks or months
  23:47:29 <Talrias> decision making was in the agenda
  23:47:32 <Talrias> i'm talking about it :)
  23:47:33 <GerardM> now how do the projects fit into the committees ?
  23:47:39 <Talrias> i feel upstaged :p
  23:47:52 <Trickstar> lol
  23:47:58 <mav> I imagine the rules of almost all the committees will need to be readusted after they all get formed and start to interact
  23:47:59 <Angela> GerardM: I think we need a separate meeting for that. Please go on Talrias.
  23:48:07 <kim_register> Talrias :-)
  23:48:09 <Talrias> yes, thanks Angela :)
  23:48:11 <soufron> I think all of you has ideas about the way committees should work
 23:48 JOIN: notafish
  23:48:13 <JamesF> Umm, hello. ;-)
  23:48:15 <soufron> I think all of you has ideas about the way committees should work
  23:48:16 <soufron> but
  23:48:23 <soufron> all of these ideas are personal
  23:48:25 <Xirzon> hi JamesF 
  23:48:28 <Talrias> decision making is obviously an important part of the committee
 23:48 JOIN: MrPatate
  23:48:34 <MiyamotoMusashi> soufron: I would say it is an important issue that needs public airing
  23:48:39 <soufron> I am only showing you how things could get organized with smooth governance in mind
 23:48 JOIN: akl_
  23:48:43 <soufron> and how it could be evolutive
  23:48:47 <Talrias> as we've discussed before we have to have some kind of consistency
  23:48:50 <soufron> and simple
  23:48:59 <Talrias> we can't have things which the board would make public, but a committee would keep private
  23:49:00 <kim_register> alright, some folks need to be leaving soon I take it
  23:49:14 <soufron> this is going to small details once again
  23:49:20 <soufron> and this commitee should need that
  23:49:25 <soufron> and this committee shoudl do that
  23:49:25 <kim_register> okay.
  23:49:27 <mav> Superbowl pregame show starts in 10 minutes :)
  23:49:30 <soufron> and I would like things like this
  23:49:31 <soufron> please
  23:49:32 <kim_register> next on the list is angela
  23:49:33 <Talrias> a committee should be held to the same standards as the board
  23:49:36 <kim_register> after which jimbo
  23:49:40 <soufron> we need rules
  23:49:42 <soufron> I mean
  23:49:46 <soufron> not declarations of intent
  23:49:48 <soufron> but actual rules
  23:49:56 <MiyamotoMusashi> soufron: The devil is always in the details
  23:49:57 <Talrias> seems like soufron did more talking than me in my section :)
  23:50:01 <Angela> The Executive Committee is so far the least clear, so I'd like to discuss that for a few minutes.
  23:50:01 <soufron> that will be simple enough so that every committee will follow them
  23:50:02 <dannyisme> and we need day to day operations
  23:50:08 <kim_register> Talrias, sorry about that
  23:50:10 <kim_register> Okay
  23:50:13 <kim_register> angela has the floor
  23:50:16 <Angela> There are lots of options open for forming an Executive Committee, and it seems they're not that common with such a small board (5), so there aren't many examples of follow that fit our exact situation.
 23:50 MODE: +v Angela by: kim_register
  23:50:18 <mav> soufron ; per committee and/or that apply to all committees?
  23:50:34 <Angela> I'll paste some different options.
  23:50:38 <Angela> 1) having the Executive Committee be a subset of the current board.
  23:50:38 <Angela> 2) waiting until the board is expanded and having the Executive Committee be a subset of that larger board.
  23:50:38 <Angela> 4) having open elections in the projects to choose members (in the same way two fifths of the current board were elected)
  23:50:39 <Angela> 3) having some current board members and a rep from each committee.
  23:50:40 <Angela> 5) have anyone apply to be on the Executive Committee, and the board appoints the ones it approves of.
  23:50:44 <Angela> 6) have the Executive Committee made up of external people with experience in running a non-profit organization.
  23:50:54 <soufron> mav, well, delegated authority, etc. that apply to all
  23:50:59 <soufron> mav, because it's very simple
  23:51:22 <soufron> mav, and it's just : when, how.. 
  23:51:27 <Trickstar> hush
  23:51:40 <Angela> The 6th one came about from the suggestion that we should hire an Executive Director, who would basically be the head of the Executive Committee.
  23:51:52 <Xirzon> Angela: what exactly is the role of the Exec Com?
  23:52:04 <Talrias> sorry everyone, something's come up. kim_register's doing a great job. i'm sure he can manage
  23:52:04 <Angela> The first one is kind of the current situation, but that was never made formal.
  23:52:05 <Erik_Zachte> is the role of the EC clear cut?
  23:52:06 <Erik_Zachte> if not should we not focus on that first?
  23:52:08 <Talrias> thanks all
 23:52 MODE: -o Talrias by: Talrias
  23:52:11 <MiyamotoMusashi> I would advocate a combination of aspects of the six options above
  23:52:12 <kim_register> Talrias, later!
  23:52:19 <AlisonW> Re (1) the current board is already very small at only 5 people, and whilst an EC needs to be effective it needs (imho) to widen the skillset available to the organisation
  23:52:42 <Angela> Xirzon: at a very broad level, the role of the ExecCom is to manage the organization.
  23:52:45 <soufron> there is no role to cut
  23:52:57 <soufron> the roles will be defined following the delegations they get
  23:52:58 <AlisonW> and (6) should apply but not be *solely* external. A 'normal' company will have non-exec directors, but they won't be in the majority
  23:53:02 <soufron> when a committee wants to do something
  23:53:07 <soufron> some member comes with a proposal
  23:53:10 <soufron> it's voted
  23:53:16 <soufron> and then it's proposed to the board
  23:53:17 <AlisonW> they'll be there to bring exteranal knowledge and skills to the table to beenefit the wider organisation
  23:53:20 <soufron> who accepts it or rejects it
  23:53:26 <MiyamotoMusashi> An approach would be to have the Executive Director as a board appointee, thus reporting to the Wikimedia board; the Exec Committee would be then indirectly linked to the board without being a direct subset
 : 23:53 PART: NullC
  23:53:45 <Xirzon> Angela: is the role of the ExecCom to help coordinate the other committees?
  23:53:55 <Angela> MiyamotoMusashi: I think all committees ought to be reporting to the board.
  23:54:12 <MiyamotoMusashi> Angela: I would agree, I suppose; the question is to what degree is optimal
  23:54:13 <Erik_Zachte> if EC role is not clear cut
  23:54:14 <Erik_Zachte> do we form a governing body and ask to define their own role again ?
  23:54:16 <Erik_Zachte> or soufron:
  23:54:17 <Erik_Zachte> you say the board is in charge always and unmitigated ?
  23:54:19 <soufron> Angela, then you will refuse to delegate authority to committees who don't report
  23:54:24 <Angela> Xirzon: that would probably be one role of it unless there is some other way to coordinate the other committees.
  23:54:29 <soufron> Erik_Zachte, exactly as it is today
  23:54:45 <Xirzon> I'm very much in favor of having some elected representatives from the Wikimedia projects on the Executive Committee.
  23:54:47 <Angela> Erik_Zachte: how do you propose we define the role of the EC?
  23:54:58 <akl> Xirzon: omg
  23:54:59 <Xirzon> That allows us to infuse some of the competence from Wikinews, Wikiquote, Commons etc. into the executive body.
  23:55:13 <Xirzon> akl: go ahead :)
  23:55:21 <Xirzon> That was after all part of the Wikicouncil proposal earlier
  23:55:27 <mav> after talking about the EC, can we talk about where the grants function should go?
  23:55:30 <Xirzon> and it is very common for organizations like Wikimedia to have large executive bodies.
  23:55:30 <Erik_Zachte> soufron:
  23:55:32 <Erik_Zachte> a benevolent dictatorship then
  23:55:33 <Erik_Zachte> which is much less laid back than when Jimbo did this all by himself
  23:55:44 <soufron> Erik_Zachte, I dont get your sentence
  23:55:49 <Angela> an old proposal which never got much support, but which should be re-investigated is - it's possible people could be elected from within the group of wikicouncil members to be on the EC
 : 23:55 PART: Shanel
  23:56:00 <akl> Xirzon: we're talking about the organisation, not the community. the projects are and should stay anarchic
  23:56:13 <Xirzon> akl: the ExecCom is not meant to rule over the projects
 : 23:56 PART: Celestianpower
  23:56:20 <kim_register> alright, angela we still need time for jimbo wales
  23:56:25 <GerardM> how can a committee function in any way if the sword of Damocles is always over its head ? isn't it the case that the board does not have the time ?
  23:56:27 <Xirzon> akl: that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have project-level competence on there
  23:56:29 <delphine> Xiethen why should the projects rule the exercutive committee?.
  23:56:35 <mav> angela ; but the community and the orgaization are separate things ; wikicouncil was about the community, no?
  23:56:36 <kim_register> and verdy_P may wish to broach an additional subject
  23:56:37 <delphine> * Xirzon 
  23:56:41 <kim_register> OK!
  23:56:43 <soufron> pliz pliz
  23:56:44 <kim_register> Angela finished
  23:56:44 <soufron> pliz
  23:56:45 <soufron> pliz
  23:56:45 <soufron> pliz
  23:56:48 <soufron> the current proposal
  23:56:51 <Xirzon> delphine: rule? knowledgeable and trusted people from the projects should be part of it
  23:56:52 <soufron> is to have 
  23:56:53 <Erik_Zachte> souffron meaning a government without consitution
  23:56:55 <Erik_Zachte> again: stressing benevolent, but none the less with almost limitless powers
  23:56:57 <akl> Xirzon: yes, so why should the community (who knows how to write articles) decide how to run the organisation?
  23:56:57 <kim_register> soufron, you do not have the floor
 23:57 MODE: -v Angela by: kim_register
  23:57:07 <soufron> the same way for the EC than for the other committees
  23:57:08 <Trickstar> gerard: the sword ensures that ppl actually do some serious work, and take responsibility
 23:57 MODE: +v jwales by: kim_register
  23:57:18 <Xirzon> akl: they should take a part in running the organization, and focus on making sure that their community interests are represented.
  23:57:22 <soufron> Erik_Zachte, well, the constitution is the same than what it is for the board today
  23:57:27 <MiyamotoMusashi> Angela: I made a similar proposal at [[Wikipedia:Community Panel but nobody paid much attention
  23:57:40 <GerardM> the point is that the board does not have a choise anyway
  23:57:41 <kim_register> alright, we'll discuss this some more after verdy_P
  23:57:45 <soufron> Erik_Zachte, there is no change on this, it's just a better repartition
  23:57:49 <kim_register> I think jimbo has some statements to make
  23:58:13 <Angela> 3 minutes to Jimmy, and we should end the meeting. More than 2 hours would be unproductive.
  23:58:16 <Erik_Zachte> soufron, I think change is needed
  23:58:17 <Erik_Zachte> again not because what the board did wrong, but out of principle
  23:58:19 <kim_register> Okay!
  23:58:23 <soufron> Erik_Zachte, then
  23:58:28 <kim_register> Angela, Verdy_P still wishes to make a statement
  23:58:31 <soufron> Erik_Zachte, the EC can write a proposal 
  23:58:31 <kim_register> Alright ORDER!
  23:58:34 <kim_register> ORDER!
  23:58:36 <Xirzon> Angela: perhaps you could share your personal conclusions before we end it
  23:58:37 <soufron> Erik_Zachte, and ask the board to vote for it
 23:58 Action: *kim_register whacks the hammer
  23:58:39 <soufron> Erik_Zachte, :)

closing (jwales, +m)

  23:58:52 <kim_register> Alright, jwales has the floor
  23:59:09 <Angela> Xirzon: perhaps later.
  23:59:11 <jwales> hi
 23:59 JOIN: FlyingCanuck
  23:59:33 <jwales> there were two questions earlier that I wanted to answer
  23:59:52 <verdy_p>  I wanted to ask why the project could not scale torunoutsideFlorida on donated platforms(for example the Paris' cluster). Is there some project to avoid decepting the donators ?
  00:00:19 <jwales> [17:40 	<Xirzon>	jwales: Do you support Angela's and Anthere's resolution for a certain standard of openness on the committees?
  00:00:27 <kim_register> verdy_p, you're after jwales :-)
 00:00 JOIN: MiyamotoMusashi
 : 00:01 PART: FlyingCanuck
  00:01:37 <jwales> I support very strongly the idea, but I am not sure of the need for a resolution.  If I understand what Michael has said about it, I agree with him: since there is almost nothing the committees are doing which could possibly be confidential (with some exceptions) it should be possible to conduct tons of activities publicly.  That should be the default, and I doubt if we need a resolution from the board about it.
  00:01:52 <jwales> Still, I'm undecided about the actual resolution. :)
  00:02:08 <Angela> Without the resolution, there is no guarantee committees will do anything openly.
 00:02 JOIN: MiyamotoMusashi
  00:02:28 <TimStarling> michael wants the board to have no role at all
  00:02:30 <Angela> If we have the reolsution, it becomes clear that the board does support the idea of transparency.
  00:02:32 <Trickstar> as GerardM pointed out, there's always the damocles sword ;)
  00:02:34 <jwales> we can just tell them and if they are being annoying, then we pass a resolution
  00:02:46 <soufron> jwales, I agree with you
  00:02:49 <mav> I don't think it will be wise to publish draft reports in public ; those have a tendency of being reported as official in the press
  00:02:57 <TimStarling> that undermines the role of our elected representatives
  00:02:59 <Angela> As I said before, there's little point discussing Michael's motives when he's not actually here.
  00:03:19 <TimStarling> who are the only elected representatives the community has at a managerial level
  00:03:24 <jwales> Tim, I'm pretty sure it isn't that he wants the board to have no role at all...
  00:03:48 <Angela> No.
  00:04:09 <TimStarling> if Anthere and Angela want to make a resolution, they should be allowed to
  00:04:16 <TimStarling> who cares if it's redundant with common sense?
  00:04:17 <jwales> what undermines the role?  I don't see how the rather technical question of whether the board should have a resolution about internal committee functioning has anything to do with that.
  00:04:32 <jwales> Oh, absolutely.
  00:04:45 <jwales> I'm just saying we haven't discussed it very much yet, so I'm not sure how it will shake out.
  00:04:55 <jwales> [17:41 	<NullC>	jwales: Is it? Because we're getting mixed messages on that.  If this is really an effort to distribute things rather than simply scale the board, then it should be handled in a different way than some have proposed.
  00:04:57 <kim_register> alright, quite a number of folks are speaking. Jimmy has the floor... give him a chance to speak and respond :-)
  00:05:07 <jwales> This is the other question....
 00:05 MODE: +o JamesF by: ChanServ
  00:05:36 <jwales> in response to me saying that the point of all the committee stuff is to delegate, to have more distributed authority
 00:06 MODE: +v jwales by: JamesF
 00:06 JOIN: NullC
  00:06:14 <kbrooks> May I interrupt the meeting?
  00:06:17 <jwales> The idea here is things like: rather than Soufron having to run to the board about every little thing, he (and the legal team) be given formal authority over certain things
  00:06:51 <jwales> Or, for the special projects committee: to have a group of people entrusted to handle such things, and again with having to run to the board for every little thing
  00:06:57 <Xirzon> jwales: on which level do you want official partnerships like, say, with the European Union's environmental terminology community to be handled?
  00:07:01 <MiyamotoMusashi> I definitely agree that delegation of authority in this regard would be a good idea
  00:07:21 <jwales> Xirzon: it will depend on the specific context of course
  00:07:38 <soufron> yes
  00:07:39 <kbrooks> I have a question. Is it OK to blank out a page if there is general consenus that the page is not needed (pending a deletion)
  00:07:41 <kim_register> kbrooks -> see your msg
  00:07:46 <Xirzon> jwales: they offer us content, money for development of wiktionary.
  00:07:47 <kim_register> kbrooks, Hush!
  00:07:51 <jwales> So those are my answers to two questions from before, but I also want to amplify something that akl said earlier....
  00:07:55 <kim_register> kbrooks, ask on #wikipedia
  00:08:00 <JamesF> kbrooks> This is not the appropriate venue.
  00:08:05 <kbrooks> ok
 00:08 MODE: +b %kbrooks!*@* by: kim_register
  00:08:35 <jwales> Xirzon, the details should be worked out over time depending on a variety of factors and experience, there is no simple a priori answer.
  00:08:48 <Xirzon> :)
  00:09:00 <jwales> The thing I wanted to amplify is the distinction between the *organization* and the *community*
  00:09:25 <mav> exactly 
  00:09:36 <TOR_CNR> about time... thank you :)
  00:09:39 <jwales> and what I view as an increasing need for professionalism in the organization.  Some things work really really really great in a non-heirarchical, endlessly open fashion
 00:09 MODE: -b %kbrooks!*@* by: kim_register
  00:09:48 <jwales> like: writing an encyclopedia
 00:09 JOIN: Dvortygirl_
  00:10:10 <Alphax> but not running an organisation
  00:10:16 <JamesF> Exactly.
  00:10:17 <jwales> other things do not work well at all in that way, like: speaking on behalf of the organization in a partnership context where actual money and contracts and things like that are at stake
  00:10:22 <Xirzon> Nobody is advocating "endless openness", though.
  00:10:27 <Angela> wich leads to the question of how should the executive committee be formed if not through electing people involved with the projects?
  00:10:52 <jwales> I'm not arguing against anyone's position, Xirzon.  I'm just amplifying that we need to get our organizational house in order.
  00:10:53 <JamesF> Angela> Why should it be formed through election, though? Not having a good reason not to isn't a great one. :-)
  00:11:00 <mav> the projects are only one place to look for talent
  00:11:03 <Xirzon> jwales: In that case, I most definitely agree.
  00:11:10 <cimon> Xirzon:  75% approval rating is unbounded though.
  00:11:17 <MiyamotoMusashi> Angela: I would say probably no election would be needed; appointment by fiat would be far better and less messy
  00:11:18 <jwales> On the question of the EC, Angela earlier listed several options
  00:11:21 <NullC> Xirzon�:� There is no reason to believe that the community is a good source of people who are able to do thing other than edit an encyclopedia (and create userboxes)
  00:11:24 <WiseWoman> I'm beginning to understand - WMF needs to be able to send ambassadors out into the world and they must have the authority to speak *for* the WMF in their area of expertise.
  00:11:31 <Xirzon> NullC: it's the best source we have.
  00:11:33 <JamesF> WiseWoman> Exactly.
  00:11:39 <Xirzon> NullC: all the current official positions come from the community.
  00:11:43 <jwales> I have no opinions at all about that at the present time.
  00:11:45 <dannyisme> exactly, WiseWoman
  00:11:54 <Trickstar> wisewoman: not only speak ;)
  00:11:58 <jwales> Xirzon: mostly yes, but...
  00:12:03 <Xirzon> It's funny when you see members of the community arguing against the competence of the community ;)
  00:12:13 <MiyamotoMusashi> NullC: Don't forget arguing over images, of course :)
  00:12:23 <jwales> We don't have an accountant.  Brad is our US outside legal council, with a formal relationship, and he only comes "from the community" in a very roundabout sense...
  00:12:24 <mindspillage> Xirzon: who better to know? ;-)
  00:12:27 <JamesF> Xirzon> Is it, really? Some of us have seen how bad the community is at doing things collectively.#
  00:12:28 <kim_register> Hokay, jimbo is getting swamped again :-)
  00:12:33 <jwales> kim: thx!
  00:12:44 <Datrio> everyone, I have a simple question/comment/proposition, since we're all in chaos right now
  00:12:50 <kim_register> Datrio, we're not
  00:12:50 <kim_register> ;-)
  00:12:55 <kim_register> You go after jimbo though!
  00:12:56 <Xirzon> we most definitely need outside experts, especially in the area of law.
  00:12:57 <Datrio> oh yes you are ;)
  00:12:59 <Xirzon> nobody disputes that.
  00:13:08 <jwales> Brad is a good example... he's not really a community member in the way, say, Michael Snow is
  00:13:12 <NullC> Our community has an above average competence in a few things (the ones for which it self selects) and a no better than average ability elsewhere... Now, average doesn't mean zero, but it's not what we need in order to meet our goals.
  00:13:23 <TimStarling> no doubt there are lots of accountants in the community, it's just that none of them are prepared to work in that role on a volunteer basis
  00:13:29 <jwales> but: he's local, he's passionate about our ideals... he drops by the office, he's always available, etc.
  00:13:37 <MiyamotoMusashi> Well surely it should be Jimbo's decision as to who's appointed and where they are appointed from? Is it really a matter for the community to decide? I think probably the board should be left to their discretion where they get people from
  00:13:39 <mav> jwales  ; exactly, the community is just a convenient place to look for people to help
  00:13:47 <dannyisme> and he's a nice guy :-)
  00:13:47 <jwales> The community is a *great* place to look
  00:13:50 <kim_register> OK, meeting ends in 2 minutes, we can continue discussing in #wikimedia :-)
  00:13:53 <Xirzon> mav: a very, very big place
  00:13:56 <mav> but the community should not run the organization
  00:13:57 <kim_register> just so we have an official end
  00:14:00 <kim_register> OKAY
  00:14:00 <Erik_Zachte> to me this experiment in international cooperation also belongs to the core of the project 
  00:14:02 <Erik_Zachte> so I'd rather have the board bow to the community with exceptions where needed
  00:14:03 <Erik_Zachte> than it take the lead in everything because that is so much more efficient
  00:14:05 <Erik_Zachte> I feel the latter is the dominant pattern right now
  00:14:16 <jwales> What I think those of us who work on the organization side of things need to strongly communicate into the community
 00:14 MODE: +m  by: kim_register
  00:14:22 <kim_register> jimbo has the floor
  00:14:32 <kim_register> *phew*
  00:14:37 <jwales> is that there is nothing anti-community or anti-wiki about wanting professionals to do professional things
 00:14 MODE: -m  by: kim_register
  00:14:59 <jwales> Erik: I think you're right, although I'm not sure about what the dominant pattern is right now
  00:15:14 <NullC> jwales�:� Does that mean we're abandoning the project to build our own airplanes for the transportation of board members to events?
  00:15:31 <MiyamotoMusashi> NullC: hahaha
  00:15:32 <Xirzon> jwales: I have one question. You proposed the "Wikicouncil", an elected body of members of the community a while ago. Could you elaborate on what your motivation was for that, and whether some of these ideas will survive in the committees?
  00:15:32 <soufron> mmmh
  00:15:35 <jwales> Nullc: huh?
 00:15 Action: *kim_register whacks Nullc over the head with a whiffelbat
  00:15:48 <Trickstar> :)
  00:15:53 <jwales> Xirzon: that's about the community, deciding about community things
  00:16:00 <Xirzon> what are "community things"?
 00:16 JOIN: tomg
  00:16:14 <Xirzon> So far, we've mostly either had local consensus or open votes for these.
  00:16:17 <MiyamotoMusashi> NullC: "Wikiair - the aeroplanes anyone can modify"
  00:16:19 <NullC> jwales�:� It was a sarcastic remark related to those who think the community is the right source for every skill we need.
  00:16:28 <jwales> Ah, good. :)
  00:16:31 <Xirzon> NullC: nobody thinks that.
  00:16:44 <Trickstar> community things don't belong to discussion in wikimedia-meeting ;)
  00:16:52 <mav> xirzon ; what happens *on* the community 
  00:16:54 <jwales> I can give some examples...
  00:17:12 <soufron> MiyamotoMusashi, lol
  00:17:15 <kim_register> meeting will be ending in 5 minutes, for chatter...
  00:17:22 <jwales> We know that organizations with our size and public face routinely raise tens of millions of dollars for their charitable goals
  00:17:23 <kim_register> jwales, has the floor for another 2-3 minutes, 
  00:17:29 <kim_register> give him some air folks!
  00:17:56 <jwales> there are professionals who work in that area who know how to do it right, lots of details like managing donor lists, etc.
  00:18:10 <jwales> If there's a professional in the community to help with that, then super
 00:18 JOIN: finanzer
 : 00:18 PART: finanzer
  00:18:24 <jwales> for example: Delphine is a professional conference organizer, so having her organize the conference makes beautiful sense
  00:18:28 <jwales> but if we didn't have delphine
  00:18:33 <jwales> we would hire another professional
  00:18:36 <Xirzon> sure.
  00:18:45 <Trickstar> or ask in the community, if there's someone ;)
  00:18:48 <jwales> ok that's all I have to say
  00:18:53 <Angela> I don't know if there's really time to discuss this now, but perhaps something to consider for another meeting: since some people are suggesting the organisation and community should be completely separate, does that mean two members of the board should *not* be elected from the community?
  00:18:53 <jwales> yes of course ask in the community
  00:18:57 <delphine> Trickstar except
  00:19:02 <mav> jwales ; the biggest thing in relation to that is having somebody with enough time ; volunteers who already have a full time job have limited time
  00:19:14 <jwales> Angela, I would never support that.
  00:19:21 <delphine> Trickstar I did it last year, as one of the *community*
  00:19:22 <Xirzon> However, the area of fundraising is a particular one where we need true innovation, and for that we need clever members from all areas of the community, open meetings, and so forth.
  00:19:35 <jwales> Xirzon: this is where you and I disagree
  00:19:37 <MiyamotoMusashi> Angela: I think that perhaps having an outside individual might not necessarily be a bad idea simply because it would allow a fresh pair (or two pairs) of eyes to exist
  00:19:49 <jwales> we do not need endless community discussions in the hope that somehow this will magically create innnovations
  00:19:49 <NullC> Still should come before community membership, ... any professional can learn to work with the community as needed, while most community members can't be expected to learn a lifetimes worth of special skills just for Wikipedia in their spare time.
  00:19:55 <Angela> jwales: in that case, why would the Exec Committee not be formed in the same way?
  00:19:56 <Xirzon> jwales: not endless, no.
  00:20:00 <kim_register> heh, everyone is putting in statements
  00:20:02 <MiyamotoMusashi> Angela: Outside people on the board might help to act as a sanity valve :)
  00:20:03 <TimStarling> I think most of the things that the board are involved with are important to the community also
  00:20:06 <soufron> mmmh
  00:20:07 <Erik_Zachte> one more about wikicouncil, an idea by jimmy which I favour much 
  00:20:08 <Erik_Zachte> wikicouncil was not announced on the mailling lists so few people knew about it
  00:20:10 <Erik_Zachte> it could give guidance to the executive board that handles daily affairs
  00:20:11 <Erik_Zachte> so that things like 'do we allow ads' are discussed and voted on  in a wider audience
  00:20:16 <jwales> we need to be professional -- raising money for charities is not a new field of research, it is a profession
  00:20:19 <TimStarling> it's obviously important to the community what the manner of fundraising is
  00:20:23 <MiyamotoMusashi> jwales: I agree
  00:20:26 <Xirzon> jwales: raising money on the internet _is_ a new field of research.
 00:20 MODE: +m  by: kim_register
  00:20:38 <kim_register> alright...
  00:20:44 <kim_register> we're in last moments of meeting now :-)
  00:20:58 <JamesF> Jimbo's final thoughts, please: ;-)
  00:21:30 <cimon> kim_register:  were there many requests besides my own still in the roster?
 : 00:22 PART: mav
  00:23:06 <kim_register> hmm, jimbo?
 00:23 MODE: +v Angela by: kim_register
  00:23:18 <kim_register> any last words from angela?
  00:23:28 <Angela> Not right now, no.
  00:23:35 <kim_register> Okay, 
  00:23:35 <JamesF> kim> We've been unkind and put Jimbo on the spot with no-one to cover for him as he thinks, that's all.
  00:23:49 <kim_register> JamesF, hehehe :-)
  00:23:56 <kim_register> alright... 
  00:24:28 <kim_register> *phew* we did get some actual discussion done today :-)
  00:24:37 <kim_register> let's close this meeting
  00:24:46 <JamesF> Will someone be doing minutes?
  00:24:50 <kim_register> everyone who'd like to discuss go visit #wikimedia
 : 00:25 PART: WiseWoman
 00:25 MODE: +o TimStarling by: ChanServ
 : 00:25 PART: Submarine
  00:25:35 <TimStarling> #wikimedia is pretty busy already
  00:25:43 <TimStarling> are you sure you don't want to keep talking here?
  00:26:05 <Angela> I think we should close the meeting and arrange another time to continue.
  00:26:12 <JamesF> Yes.
  00:26:13 <TimStarling> fair enough
  00:26:15 <kim_register> very well
  00:26:19 <JamesF> 6 days' time?
  00:26:26 <Angela> Sounds ok to me.
  00:26:29 <Angela> same time?
  00:26:32 <JamesF> (So that people for whom Sundays are bad aren't utterly caught out.)
  00:26:37 <kim_register> if #wikimedia is too busy, people can branch subchannels
  00:26:37 <JamesF> Sure.
  00:27:01 <Angela> Kim_register: I'd rather they just came back here in 6 days than tried going on now.
 00:27 Action: *kim_register raises hammer
 : 00:27 PART: delphine
 : 00:27 PART: brion
 00:28 Action: *kim_register meeting closed!
  00:28:07 <kim_register> :-)
  00:28:11 <Angela> thanks everyone for coming :)
  00:28:12 <kim_register> *WHACK*
  00:28:29 <Angela> Thanks Kim for moderating.