A few points
Looks great, Wayne -- thanks for all your hard work! A few points:
In the Policy for Community Governance
- In section 4.4.2 the Patron of WikiEducator is offered an ex officio seat on the Council, taking one of the positions for nominated members. I don't object to that. However, given that this means that the position of Patron will be more than honourary, and that it isn't explained at all in the Governance Policy other than that ex officio mention, perhaps a few paragraphs of detail about that position and its role would be helpful.
- In the preliminary discussions there were two perspectives. One which said the patron should assume executive directorship of the council and another emphasizing the honorary capacity of the Patron. So I took the liberty in proposing a compromise -- namely an ex officio membership as part of the nominated officials - rather than elected members. Do you have any thoughts on the role of Patron -- I agree, this would be a valuable addition to the documentation. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd always thought that if the Patron should have any authority, it should be to reform things should they go terribly awry. I suppose I see the Patron as a sort of head of state, and the Chair of the Council as a sort of head of government. In other words, should for some reason there not be a functioning Council, the Patron would be able to step in a take steps to revive things. Similarly, the Patron would be a welcome advisor for any meeting the Council or ExCom might hold. I do think we should err on the side of the Patron's role being honorary and advisory, though, since we're talking about a position that's essentially a lifetime appointment. (That said, I also think there shouldn't be anything restricting the Patron from also being an elected or appointed member of the Council, and were Sir John so inclined he'd certainly have my vote.) --SteveFoerster 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- The head of state versus head of government is a useful distinction. Do you want to have a bash at formulating a few descriptors on the role of Patron? --Wayne Mackintosh 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd always thought that if the Patron should have any authority, it should be to reform things should they go terribly awry. I suppose I see the Patron as a sort of head of state, and the Chair of the Council as a sort of head of government. In other words, should for some reason there not be a functioning Council, the Patron would be able to step in a take steps to revive things. Similarly, the Patron would be a welcome advisor for any meeting the Council or ExCom might hold. I do think we should err on the side of the Patron's role being honorary and advisory, though, since we're talking about a position that's essentially a lifetime appointment. (That said, I also think there shouldn't be anything restricting the Patron from also being an elected or appointed member of the Council, and were Sir John so inclined he'd certainly have my vote.) --SteveFoerster 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- In the preliminary discussions there were two perspectives. One which said the patron should assume executive directorship of the council and another emphasizing the honorary capacity of the Patron. So I took the liberty in proposing a compromise -- namely an ex officio membership as part of the nominated officials - rather than elected members. Do you have any thoughts on the role of Patron -- I agree, this would be a valuable addition to the documentation. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Section 4.9 states that "Any Council member may be removed by a majority vote of the full membership of the Council." What, just like that an elected member may be removed by majority vote? I have to take exception to that; it seems like an opportunity for a majority to stifle opposing points of view. I can see there being a procedure to removing a member who's truly damaging the project, but it shouldn't be an easy one.
- The thinking here about removal was more about misconduct, conflict of interest, actions which bring WikiEducator into disrepute etc. I do take your point though -- perhaps we should task the first council to develop a policy for the circumstances that would constitute a proposal for removal. This could be one of the first tasks of the elected council. We shouldn't stifle, but encourage opposing points of view. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds good; let's let the first Council set this policy. --SteveFoerster 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- The thinking here about removal was more about misconduct, conflict of interest, actions which bring WikiEducator into disrepute etc. I do take your point though -- perhaps we should task the first council to develop a policy for the circumstances that would constitute a proposal for removal. This could be one of the first tasks of the elected council. We shouldn't stifle, but encourage opposing points of view. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In the Election Procesdures
- In section 6, the Nomination requirements section, it says that "Nominations must be confirmed by two WikiEducators other than the candidate. The candidate is responsible for seeking the confirmations" and that "At least one confirmation for nomination must be from one of the top 50 active contributors on WikiEducator as of 8 June 2008". I don't object to that. However, it would be helpful to have a list of the Nifty Fifty available -- and also to allow those of them who are disinclined to receive entreaties from would-be nominees to have the chance to opt out.
- Here is the list -- I figured that the nominee could always approach another nifty fifty in this scenario. The thinking is to have at least one committed WikiEducator confirm that the nominee would be worthy to stand for election -- without being too onerous or prescriptive on the nomination requirements. As a wiki community, I personally place a high priority on the web-of-trust and if someone wants to opt out from confirming a nomination, they are free to do so.--Wayne Mackintosh 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Very good, that all makes a lot of sense. --SteveFoerster 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the list -- I figured that the nominee could always approach another nifty fifty in this scenario. The thinking is to have at least one committed WikiEducator confirm that the nominee would be worthy to stand for election -- without being too onerous or prescriptive on the nomination requirements. As a wiki community, I personally place a high priority on the web-of-trust and if someone wants to opt out from confirming a nomination, they are free to do so.--Wayne Mackintosh 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
