Thread:Excellent set of questions (22)

Apologies if what I will say will sound rough, but I think we are overcomplicating things while talking in a highly speculative manner. I think that we should try VERY hard to clear our heads of traditional notions of governance, and trying to fit them into the wiki, as at best, we'll end up with a bad fit, at worst with an unworkable system.

Sure we can have elections! why not use the transferable vote system (it works in Malta -- sort of) but do we have an electorate? the 2500 user mark set by Wayne, was an arbitrary ball park marker. what if we only get a 100 voters? what if the voters are gender biased? .. that's already too many what ifs for me!

Would you consider having the new board chosen by public acclaim? Its not a formal system, but it can work if the electorate is very small? Here's how it would work: step 1: find out how many users are interested in positively choosing a board. step 2 find out how many people are willing to sit on the board, and how many can get a seconder. If the total is less than a dozen, then you have your committee, and just ask the community to approve.

NOW, I'm not saying that this is either a good or a realistic system. I'm just trying to put in a bit of fantasy into the conversation, so we don't get lost on drab electoral technicalities which might not be relevant in the long term.

I think we should try to hold close to the rough consensus model as much as possible; but that is just my opinion)

Also the very first thing we need to determine is the raison d'etre of the board. And its role. In my view, an open wiki like this exists independently of its infrastructure. It is primarily a community (which can do finely without a board). It is also a bunch digital data under a free licence; which implies that if the database dumps are made available that too is independent of the infrastructure, at least in theory. On the practical side, a wiki needs an infrastructure without which it cannot express itself, and would die. Currently the infrastructure is provided for by COL.

I think it would be useful to frame the role of the board (if not of wikieducator itself) in these terms. Lets think abstract first, and grow outwardly from there. Wherever we end up, My personal preference will always be for set-up that is a informal as possible while remaining workable, constantly re-shaping itself ad hoc. My hope is that whatever is decided by us now, will have been comletly reshaped by 2015, because by then the internet, wiki technology and education will have changed dramatically.

In designing the wikieducator board our first requirement ought to be that this structure will not hinder our successors, in any way, shape or form from taking wikied forward in a changed scenario. Too many a board has painted itself into a beurocratic corner. Thank god that free content always leaves a way out (also known as a fork).

Also, I disagree with the role of Executive Director. Its good that Wayne acted unilaterally on occasion, and we should leave that window open. The formal posting of an Executive Director, implies that NO other person can act unilaterally, even if it is required to e.g. keep the server online in an emergency. We do not need a formal role, people will naturally emerge as Executive leaders, and unless otherwise required, the board ought to allow them to fulfil this role.

I also don't like the idea of "Full Voting member" vs. "associeate member". We should only distinguish between "confirmed users" and "unconfirmed users" for some definition of confirmed, which might include "potential contribution" but would definitely exclude Sock Puppets and bots