WikiEducator:Community Council/Meetings/Third/General discussion page
|3rd WikiEducator Community Council Meeting|
|Home||Agenda | Motions and votes | General discussion page|
Use this page for general discussions on the Third WCC meeting. Remember to sign your post.
- Hi Kim, No we don't. That said, I can see the benefit of a "code of conduct" as our community grows. Speaking personally -- I think its a good idea for us to think about developing a code of conduct and the Ubuntu example certainly reflects the tacit values of our community. Shall we propose a community work group to draft something up? I'd put up my hand to help. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. It will be useful (induction) for newcomers into the WE culture, and as a reference when discussions get too heated. --Kim Tucker 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Educators are passionate about what they do and discussion can get heated at times ;-). That said, as an international project the "tone" associated with critical rationalism can be offensive for some cultures and communities -- so I like the idea of a reference. There may be others from Council with similar interests (and talents) to help with crafting a document like this. I think a Community Workgroup is a good way to do this, so that we can invite wider participation from the WikiEducator family. Thanks for raising this -- good idea. --Wayne Mackintosh 23:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- As I said before, I'd like to see some kind of ethics for WE, with values like nonviolence, justice, freedom, human rights etc. Not so much in order to tell people how they should behave, I mean we're all educators and should know how to behave, but more to foster educational content that supports these values.--GünOss 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What can WE do if...
Wayne suggested using this space for informal discussions. Something to get our combined creative juices flowing - how about this?
- There was a report that, by 2020 most of US tax revenues will go to government pensions, Medicare, interest and debt repayment, so there won't be money for roads and schools. What role can WikiEducator play in that scenario? What can / should WE be doing now to prepare for something BIG? --Valerie Taylor 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow -- that's a BIG question :-). I have a keen interest in the notions of how networked societies are changing the traditional roles and access of formal education institutions (aka Anya Kamenetz's DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education and others) -- the notion of disaggregating educational services traditionally packaged together by formal education institutions is not a new idea. However, with open licensed content combined within a networked society -- this appears to be more possible today than science fictional speculation. So that's the scenario and challenges faced by the industrialised world. However, in the developing world, the notion of universal access to education is a fiction. It aint going to happen soon. There will never be enough money to build schools or train teachers to respond to the demand for education with 4 billion of the world's 6 billion people under served when it comes to education. The only way we can conceivably address these challenges is by freeing up knowledge and disaggregating educational activities -- OER is a sustainable and renewable resource. WikiEducator is part of the eco-system -- helping to build and support community that collaborate on developing free teaching materials. I think we need to think about how WikiEducator fits within the eco-system, identify the "node-gaps" in this future eco-system and work together in filling the gaps. mmmm now that's BIG :-) --Wayne Mackintosh 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to "see" the community involved in the community council discussions so they can share their ideas. The voting should be left to the elected members of the council. I am honored to have been nominated to the council, but I have never felt comfortable with having voting rights. --Nellie Deutsch 12:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I respect that. I suppose you could always contribute to discussion, but then abstain on principle during votes. SteveFoerster 14:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nellie, you were nominated because your role overseeing the election prevented you from being elected. I'm sure you would have been elected if you had run. Everything for the WCC is posted in the wiki so "technically" it is all public. But you do raise an important point - Perhaps there should be some additional outbound communication to the WE community at large to ensure that everyone who is remotely interested can see what is going on and participate / contribute if they feel so inclined. --Valerie Taylor 19:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nellie, Steve makes a good point. This is what makes WE something unique and special -- namely that WE are a value driven community. An abstention is an effective way to communicate the principles underpinning your thoughts with reference to tabled motions. Silence assumes assent in accordance with our policy. That said, I don't think there is a perfect system of governance. There are strengths and weaknesses in all models, and we do our best to strike the right balance in best serving our project goals. It's hard to attach labels but I think our model lies somewhere on a continuum between a democracy and meritocracy. I think open philanthropy and radical transparency are the most effective measures to minimise the weaknesses of any given governance model. Regarding voting rights -- in terms of our model, you are seen as an equal on Council. Elected Council members have voted and judge your professional experience and commitment to the community to be valuable and you have every right to vote at meetings (as you have the right to abstain.) --Wayne Mackintosh 23:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding open community involvement I think WikiEducator has a great model with reference to our Community Workgroup Policy -- IMHO this is a great model because all policies and guidelines that will have a community-wide impact must be developed in the community (and not by Council). There are checks and balances to ensure and promote open communication and community engagement. Moreover, any member of the Community has the freedom to constitute a Workgroup, without the need to necessarily gain approval from Council. I think WE can stand proud in having this open mechanism in our model. --Wayne Mackintosh 23:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)