Talk:Community petition

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Petition cross-posting locations[edit]

  1. English Wikipedia Geo.plrd 02:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Has the decision been formally taken with a vote? Is it known if anybody opposed or everybody was in favour? Were all the members present and voted? Snowolf How can I help? 03:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those things would be good to know, wouldn't they? Durova 04:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly my point. I guess I'll have to file a OTRS ticket :D Snowolf How can I help? 04:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I managed to catch Jan-Bart on IRC who kindly answered our question. All the members were present (Frieda not in person and not constantly) and in favor. I prefer to fully quote his answer as it's probably better:
I must empathize that it shouldn't (I think) be taken as a formal statement, but at least we have something :) Snowolf How can I help? 05:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frieda was not involved online during any part of the board meeting; Anthere

Volunteer Council[edit]

I dislike the fact that the volunteer council is worked into this petition. I didn't support the volunteer council, and I don't care that the board voted against it. I only care about the board restructuring which seems like a major power play. In light of that, I felt that I had to qualify my signature to note that I didn't support the volunteer council. Hopefully someone will rewrite this petition to remove that part, and then I can remove my qualification. Swatjester 04:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I didn't specified it in my vote, I echo Swatjester. The Volunteer concil is (IMHO) a bad idea, but this is on an entirely different scale. Snowolf How can I help? 04:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Err, it's overly specific, but it is another example of the community being disenfranchised. While I didn't particularly support the idea, it does seem to be a symptom of the larger problem, taken holistically. WilyD 13:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


imho this should be turned into a vote - petitions only support one side of a story. 08:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"All oppose being informed, say nay!" Seriously. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the issue?[edit]

I think I cannot sign right now, since the given text is unclear to me what it opposes exactly.

  • The rejection of Volunteer Council (VC) resolution? - I conform with Mike Snow's explanation and no problem on their rejection. (Said on the section above)
  • Lack of previous public discussion on re-construction? Well, I am greatly concerned about that and not welcome of such lack of communication.
  • And the outcome of that resolution? Hmmmm but honestly *at that moment* I have no clear standpoint without giving any intensive thought to that. I've read it but it is not the time for me to address a clear opposition, and I am not sure I'd like to call the announced composition "disrespect of the community".

So, I won't sign at this moment, since I don't want to oppose the idea which I wouldn't oppose necessarily. Along with the concern of VC rejection, I'd rather recommend to re-word this petition. It would just come from language barrier of mine, and very clear for the native English people, but I say my English is not so bad, so I presume not many signatures would be collected from the whole of the community with the current petition wording. It is at least for me as a second language learner too unclear, and for me as a community member too wide to sign up. --Aphaia 09:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this the Volunteeer Council everyone is talking about? ..--Cometstyles 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh, thx. Tweaked. --Aphaia 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

separate project petitions[edit]

As I have mentioned on w:Wikipedia talk:Community petition, I dont think it is appropriate to run this petition on each separate projects. It should be translated here, but all signatures collated on meta, as this is a meta issue. It would be more appropriate to initiate a Village Pump thread on each project to let them know about this petition. I have also nominated s:Wikisource:Community petition for speedy deletion. John Vandenberg 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found a similar page on my home project, which is linked from nowhere else. I agree with you that it is better to be speedied or just turned into a soft redirect to that page. --Aphaia 12:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully agree. Snowolf How can I help? 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The petition on Wikinews.en has been softly redirected to this petition. DragonFire1024 15:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with above, re: the one location. Cirt 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Moved the signatures to Meta:Community petition/sign. This way we can just transclude signatures on various language subpages and keep the signatures centralized. ^demon 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Durova 18:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have added the capability for the page to be translated to the page. Will try to get Spanish and Frecnh up. If anyone else wants to translate please do. --Anonymous101 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My spanish isn;t that good so could someine check it --Anonymous101 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please update the top of this talk page so we know where else the petition exists. Durova 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think right now people are redirecting to this one and encouraging translations. I know the en.wikipedia one was redirected since being mentioned as a duplicate. ^demon
Could we have a list of where it's being redirected from? Durova 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are all found at Community petition just the uselang=es action is added. --Anonymous101 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am I missing something, or doesn't that just show the language rather than the project(s). It's a fine piece of coding. I was hoping for documentation of which projects have been transcluded. Durova 08:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment

are, to my knowledge, the only English pages redirecting here. --Anonymous101 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit more detail please?[edit]

Could one of the supporters of this petition please explain in a bit more detail what, in your view, is the problem with the board resolution you refer to, and why it reduces the power of the community? This is not clear from WMF's official announcement. Thanks, --Zvika 08:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second that request. My first exposure to this was the Valleywag article, which is never a good starting point for a calm discussion. Some background and a little explanation of the issues would be great. 19:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find a (very convincing, IMO) post by Durova about this on foundation-l. There is also a (more neutral, obviously) article in this week's Wikipedia Signpost. --Zvika 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Childish event. One of the Top-10-Websites should be lead like a Hippe-Comune? No, thanks. I prefer professional structures. The new Model is very good. And it's fair, also to the Comunity. So I must write my support for this new kind of Board. Marcus Cyron 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the great unwashed can be trusted to write the content why that can't be trusted to run the Foundation?! The Foundation is actually less important than the content; if the Foundation were to fail the content would not disappear. This project should stand or fall on the strength of its members and not become a club for power and glory seeking (wo)men in suits. Imho. --Kingboyk 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed improvements[edit]

I propose the following improvements to the board restructuring proposal:

  • Reduce the number of appointed seats from 4 to 2 (1 preferred), and/or converting them to seats elected directly from the community, bringing the number of community-elected seats from 3 to 5 or 6.
  • The number of Community-elected seats must be equal to or more than 50% of the total number of seats (including the Chair).
  • The chair of the WMF board must have a community-elected background. Exceptions can be made only by a majority vote of community-elected board members.
  • The board restructuring proposal must be ratified by the community (an independent election like current board elections, run on servers such as SPI) before putting into practice.
  • (Added) For the community-elected seats, the board or the Chair may nominate their own candidate(s), but they must compete equally with other candidates nominated by the community and go through the same election process.--Computor 14:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's look at this differently[edit]

I think I understand the goals of the restructuring (at least, as stated). And have looked over at least some of the concerns.

I think most concerns would become moot if the number of community seats were always at least equal to number of board appointed seats; and no less than one-half the total membership, minus one: (TM/2)-1, round down.

To illustrate: Under the current restructure, there are 10 members. 1 founder + 4 "special expertise" = 5 board-appointed seats. However, the community has only 3 seats, which is less than the number of board-elected seats; and which is equal to less than one-third the board membership (regardless of whether you subtract 1).

So, to meet this requirement, merely increase the number of community seats from 3 to 5.

On one hand, it retains the seats provided for by the restructure, while reducing the appearance of what some have called a "power-grab".

To me, this would seem to be a rather simple solution, and avoid a future drama.

I welcome thoughts on this. - Jc37 23:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead and propose a solution on the Foundation mailing list. Durova 05:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A significant problem with this solution is the potential increase of inefficiency when the board grows in number. 12 is bordeline maximum figure. It is also important to note that the difficulty to organize board meetings (with as many people as possible) increase with the number of participants. Last, of course, the larger the number, the higher the costs (in particular travel). Whilst none of this was the main reason for not going into the direction you suggest, I feel that this were perceived as significant considerations to take into account Anthere 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, this would bring the board to 12.
But that aside, you speak as if this has already been considered (and rejected). Has it? - Jc37 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'M SIGNING — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sonicthehedgehog9000 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2008


Apply and get hired if you believe you should have any control over anything separate from the content of your own submissions. Abandon all pseudo-rebellion idiocy. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2008