Approving charters
On my first attempt (here) at using this boiler plate (the version with 2 tables of signatures) for this section, I found it confusing:
As people started signing, it looked like duplication with possible ambiguity as the same names appeared in both tables including WCC members and non-WCC members in the first table.
I assume the intention is to have two levels of approval for Community project charters:
- by workgroup members (before submission to WCC)
- by the WCC.
I added some wording to clarify (here).
Suggestion to avoid such confusion: a separate page for Community Workgroup submissions:
=Community Workgroups=
== [[WG X]] ==
<table of WCC approvers>
Status: submitted
== [[WG Y]] ==
<table of WCC approvers>
Status: approved
etc.
Then we would only need one table in the charter and the process would become: To submit your Community workgroup charter add it to the [[Community Workgroups]] page ..., and then, whenever a Community project charter is approved by WCC, its main (charter) page receives {{Approved_charter}}.
Hi Kim,
Thanks for the feedback on use of the charter boilerplate. Really valuable. I agree that the two table approach is confusing.
When I added it, I was thinking it would help us see who had participated at different points in the groups history: initial signup, approval of charter, and any other later approval steps. But I think it's too confusing. No workgroup has used it in this way. The approvals have all been recorded in a different spot.
Based on this feedback, I think the members section should be just a list of those who signed up to participate. The approval section (at the bottom) could suggest a process to include collecting member signatures to indicate approval. I'll revise to reflect this approach.
I'm also seeing that your understanding is that a workgroup's charter needs to be approved by council. WE Workgroups started with that premise, but later decided it's not necessary (and unnecessarily adds to bureaucracy) for most groups; council approval is needed only when there are financial, legal or technical dependencies. We tried to make that clear in the Formal constituion... section. Because the Admendments to open community governance policy workgroup was initiated as a result of a Council meeting, it seems right to include Council approval, although the fact that many Council members are participating, might make this unnecessary.
Does this make any sense? I'm very interested in your thoughts on how WE can improve the policy.
Alison
Ditto on the requirement for Council approval of workgroup charters.
The intention was to develop a policy that promotes transparency and adequate opportunities for participation by all WikiEducators and Council's role is that of stewardship -- ensuring good democratic governance.
Subsequently -- the workgroup policy has been designed to promote this democratic process and council approval of charters is not required. However - a work group is free to suggest council approval of the charter as one of the process steps and I agree with Alison that in this case -- Council approval makes sense.
Cheers Wayne
