Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is a subpage of Esperanza.

Notice: Esperanza is currently being reformed. Please note that all programs, the Advisory Council and the Charter are affected. Further details can be found on the Esperanza talk page.


Contents

[edit] Esperanza Governance

[edit] Issues

The Esperanza governance is useless and/or corrupt.

[edit] Discussion

OK, I believe that the AC is highly important now and will most certainly be to enforce the reforms. I think we need to clear up a few problems, though:

A) More clearly outline the purpose. and B) Make sure it is clear that the AC members are no better than any other users and only have power within Esperanza.

So. That's my two cents. DoomsDay349 05:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Now that we have the new reforms going around, we definitely need to reform our government system. If you're concerned about the power of the AC (which I have no concern over), why not try to implement a checks and balances system to make sure that no one corrupts? Anyway, that's my three cents. ;) --Ed ¿Cómo estás? 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! "The Esperanza governance is useless"???!!! I didn't even notice that! Anyway, why do you say that?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 05:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It was said during the MFD at some point. I can't give you where or who, but it was. As for a checks-and-balances system, I dunno; is it that serious? How would we do so? DoomsDay349 05:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Nvm that. Now I know what you meant by the issues on the Governance. But how do we solve the problem? My only suggestion is to decrease the power of the AC, which I don't think would be a good idea.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm too lazy to read over the charter; what exactly is the power of the AC? DoomsDay349 06:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The AC decided what should be archived at the preposal page, and try to address any issues raised before the meeting (these can be many, many things). The AC has no actual power, but do the matenance work of Esperanza, so all others can spend more time working on our actual programmes. So, I guess we don't have any actual powers, we just Advise. Thε Halo Θ 13:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My question is, why have a governance structure at all? Wikipedia in general relies on consensus among ordinary users to make decisions; there are exceptions, but in each case this is because a governance structure was seen as necessary for some reason. Is Esperanza such a case? I can't see why it would be. The way that this overhaul is being handled, with ordinary users who are interested in the subject taking the initiative and making changes, is evidence that Esperanza can be managed in a decentralized fashion. --RobthTalk 07:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Still, this would be a very, very major decision and will need a lot of feedback before we act on it...I'm going to link this on the talk page for more feedback. DoomsDay349 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As a show of faith to the rest of Wikipedia, and as a possible solution to the problems here, I suggest that all current AC members be made to stand for recall, regardless of tranche. Any reform of Esperanza should include those currently at the top. AC members are ultimately accountable for the success of the program, and should be held accountable for the failures. --RoninBKETC 09:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While I may be bias ;) I'm not sure having another election right now would be either a solution to the problems here or a show of good faith to anyone. Not only would an election right now be very disruptive to the overhaul, but we should really decided if any form of Governance is needed before we go through the task of deciding who is right for the job. Thε Halo Θ 11:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll grant that if the decision is "no governance" then obviously the discussion is moot. I disagree with the "no governance" opinion, in fact I think that the MfD's are suggesting to me that Esperanza needs more direction to keep to its goals, not less. Especially if the Coffee Lounge is going to continue to exist in any shape or fashion, it would undoubtedly have to be moderated to stay within Wikipedia policy, which is a responsibility I'd prefer to see in the hands of a duly elected AC than general Wikipedia admins. I'm not asking for an election right now, but I do think that after we decide on whether we will continue to have a Council, we will need to re-evaluate who we have in those positions. --RoninBKETC 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you need leadership, just grant it to a single seretary, who acts as a figurehead. No-one should be taking orders from a leader on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as giving or taking orders. I guess, now that I think about it some more, it's kinda like the Admin mop. On the one hand, it would be a responsibility to keep Esperanza from getting to the point we're in now, by politely reminding people that even though we're building community, we're building an encyclopedia first. On the other hand, just like the Admin mop it's not a big deal. It's not intended to create a hierarchy or bureaucracy. --RoninBKETC 13:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with the above evalulation, and think that this is why I would like to see the AC kept after the reforms. After we're back on our feet, then I think a discussion about do we need to continue with the Governence would be more effective, and we would be in a better position to decided. I should also add that the next elections are this comming December, for anyone who wanted to know. Thε Halo Θ 13:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to think that we're not corrupt! And even if we were, there wouldn't be much for us to do with our evil plans. ;) I'm just kidding, it's probably good to have a discussion on the governance. I'm not sure if everyone has a clear picture of what the advisory council does, because it's really not a high-powered group. In truth, it's more to keep things running smoothly, and take care of things that require actual decision making after discussion. Things that we've done in the past months or so:

  • Approved and archived programs - I think it's good to have this done by a group, rather than simply be discussion. We get lots of discussion on the proposed programs page, and then the council will take all these discussions into account in an unbiased manner and decide what to do with the programs.
  • Brought up major issues to be discussed - Anyone could really do this, but sometimes when seven people get together and talk about Esperanza's problems, it can be brought up in a cohesive manner and invites lots of discussion. Not a big issue, though.
  • Dealing with more administrative tasks of Esperanza: Sending out the Newsletter, creating and dealing with its opt out list, setting up elections (though not running them, and if there was no governance this wouldn't matter).
  • And a lot of really just general action things. The council or its members will bring up programs that need more attention. Also, just having the council discuss an issue and then come back with suggestions can bring some direction to a discussion - not to say that this isn't also achieved by general discussion, it's just what I've noticed.
  • Officially, the council is also responsible for dealing with out of line Esperanza members, but thankfully, we've not had to deal with that much.

So really, the governance of Esperanza doesn't have a whole lot of power. At least to me, it seems that it just takes care of the things that need to be taken care of by not a whole group of people. If we figure out that we don't need this anymore, then that's exciting, but as Esperanza stands right now, it seems to serve some use. Hopefully we can work on not being so corrupt... ;) -- Natalya`

  • I dont see the governance as corrupt, and I dont see them as Wikipedians that wield any power outside of this organisation. I do, however, see them as better Wikipedians than myself, and this widespread view can lead to people seeing the governance as more powerful. As for being useless, an amendment to the charter could change this - • The Giant Puffin • 15:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Natalya. I see us as acting like Admins are supposed to do on Wikipedia, but for Esperanza: assessing consensus and making sure Esperanza continues to be the great place it is. We don't have power, just a hefty mop, in my opinion. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


The issues that you have raised do not require more than one person: one person can easily raise issues and determine consensus, discipline members etc. As for the newsletter and other mopping, I do see why normal Esperanzan members can do it; is there a special reason one must have the title Councillor to add newsletters to pages? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we remove the Council entirely?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I see the problem with just having one person who controlls everything is that the governence is even more exposed to allegations of corruption. Thε Halo Θ 17:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, you're approaching this entirely from the wrong angle. You seem to be assuming that someone needs to have power and form leadership. I dispute this - many many organisations, for example, every WikiProject, run on Wikipedia without any form of leadership. Esperanza is no different. There is no need for "governance" as such. Virtually everything you claim the council do could just as easily be done be competent members - and the things that require determination of consensus are easily done by a single secretary, as the various WIkipedian associations have. There is no corruptuion if there is no power. So yes, I would advocate removing the entire council and it being replaced with a single secretary to work to keep things running smoothly. Nothing else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the consensus here however, is that the governence has worked well for Esperanza in the past, and that we should give it a try, especially during this period of reform, before disbanding it. If, we the dust has settled, there turns out to be no need for Governence, it will be easy to disband it then. However, that's just my reading of the situation. Thε Halo Θ 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Prior to the MfDs, consensus was also that the userproject award was a marvellous idea too - you know as well as I do that if the issue is not settled during this period of reform, the momentum will be lost and people uninterested in any more refom discussions. People above has said that the council is akin to admins wielding a mop - I have asked why the mop cannot be weilded just as well without a council; what is your reply to this, Councillor? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I pretty much support what Natalya has said above. If one person was to say what the consensus is, that decission is much more likely to be accused of some kind of bias than a small group of people. Also - "Also, just having the council discuss an issue and then come back with suggestions can bring some direction to a discussion - not to say that this isn't also achieved by general discussion, it's just what I've noticed." again, this point works with more than one person. Also dealing with more administrative tasks of Esperanza: Sending out the Newsletter, creating and dealing with its opt out list, setting up elections (though not running them, and if there was no governance this wouldn't matter) would take a lot of work for one person to do. And, while this is just a personal thing, I truley feel, having been on both on and off of the AC, I do think that some kind of Governence works. Things go smoother, people seem happier. Don't ask me why. I've just seen that the Governence works. I still doubt you'll agree with me, but I really believe it just works. Thε Halo Θ 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Having discovered Wikipedia:Esperanza/Advisory Committee Meeting October 2006, I find it worrying that you are holding closed meetings. The idea that the council should have weight than any other group of Wikiepdians seems to go entirely against the spirit of what Wikipedia stands for. The idea is consensus, not prodding one way or the other, no matter how gently. If peopel are given leaders, they follow them blindly instead of thinking for themselve - definitely not something that should happen on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The Admin IRC channel is closed, and ArbCom's mailing list is private. So this actually happens a lot on wikipedia. Thε Halo Θ 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because they have to take decisions that have powerful effects on the rest of us and need to discuss them first. Esperanza does not. The Esperanzan council has no actual power beyond the obedience of fellow Esperanzans. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Before we spend too much time talking about corruption, has anyone actually accused the AC of being corrupt, or suggested that they might become so? I don't recall ever seeing this raised, and I certainly don't see it as a problem myself. --RobthTalk 17:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
An Esperanzan alleged on the MfD talkpage that I had accused Esperanza of being corrupt. This is what Halo is referring to. I will point out that I DID subsequently accuse Esperanza of being crrupt - see the page for details. I would not advise resuming that discussion here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the issues section at the top of this page that says "The Esperanza governance is useless and/or corrupt." Someone must have thought this was a concern, otherwise I'm guessing it wouldn't be up there. Thε Halo Θ 17:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that on the Governance page and the Charter, we clearly outline the responsibilities of the Council--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Agains, what responsibilities do the council hold that could not be performed by comptent Esperanzans themselves? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Making the same point endlessly doesn't help out much. So, what do they do that normal Esperanzans can't do? Not much; but the point here is that having some people responsible for keeping Esperanza in line does it better than just trusting the rest of us. Their responsibility is to ensure that all other Esperanzans work within policy; this way, we guarantee that somebody gets the job done. DoomsDay349 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"but the point here is that having some people responsible for keeping Esperanza in line does it better than just trusting the rest of us." So despite every other Wikiproject and process (ARCAID being a good one) getting along just fine without needing to be "kept in line", Esperanza has enough troublemakers that they need disciplining? Not very hopeful, is it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I would also like to point out that one of thr very criticisms ever made of Esperanza was that it was too bureaucratic: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-09-19/Esperanza group. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, like the current Council because its members serve as role-models to the rest of the community at Esperanza. If the governance is removed, who do we ask for advice or opinions?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The community at large on the Esperanza talkpage. That way, you get the advice of a wider range of people than a single person you would otehrwise contact. This could also produce some interesting points that could be further discussed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I woudl additionally like to point out that at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Reform, a majority of Esperanzans voted for "The community should be a loose-knit mutual support group with a noticeboard where we can ask each other for help, moan when needed, share ideas for reducing stress, and anything else we feel like. There is no need for such clearly defined roles and titles." Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I never read that page before! Although that reform was over a year ago, we must consider their ideas as well.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't. Not only is it far outdated, it does not reflect the views of post-MFD. It is outdated and virtually useless to us. DoomsDay349 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as the rest of Wikipedia gets along just fine running affairs by consensus of the community, I rather fail to see why Esperanza needs to be any different. No disrespect to the current AC members, whom I respect greatly, but I do think that any unnecessary bureaucracy should be drastically cut. Nor should EA require the equivalent of ArbCom - or at least I certainly hope not! Moreschi 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goals of the Advisory Council?

I dropped a couple comments at the charter discussion and didn't get my head bitten off, so I figured I'd have a go at a sequel. I've been reading this governance debate with some interest, and instead of discussing the structure of the AC, I'd like to ask what exactly they're supposed to do. As before, I freely admit my ignorance, and retain the right to back-flip if someone shows me how I've messed up. (For the record, I don't believe a change in the number of AC members is necessary.)

I'm not sure if "leader" is the right term. For one, the AC can highlight issues and suggest things to members, and they can impose sanctions to restrain members who have been disruptive (in terms of withdrawing membership, that is - any block/ban decisions are made by Wikipedia admins, based on that user's overall behaviour, without considering their group memberships.) However, they can't force anyone to do anything. (e.g. "You've been assigned to improve this article.") Their job is primarily to interpret the will of the community, which they measure through the charter (which expresses the core values of the group) and discussions (which highlight current "hot issues"). Then, they can offer ways for Esperanzans to work together and turn the community's will into reality. But this is always an offer to work together, and never an order.

Suggested powers:

  • Declare that consensus has been reached on an Esperanzan discussion, and act on that consensus
  • Alternatively, decide that an issue under discussion is too important, or too closely contested, to be summarily declared, and pass it up to the entire council to observe.
  • Be a public spokesperson for Esperanza
  • Make decisions with regard to the best interests of Esperanza
  • Suggest a course of action which is in the best interests of Esperanza (edit: Quack 688 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Suggested responsibilities:

  • remain open to regular members (I really like the current newsletter section dealing with AC)
  • Protect the Esperanzan image and brand name
  • Ensure that all the maintenance needed to keep the group alive (pages, newsletter, etc.) is carried out
  • Commit to upholding Esperanzan values and remaining active

Technically, any member could exercise some of those powers (especially if they're an admin). But there is likely to be less dispute if these things are done by elected Esperanzan officials. Also, all members are expected to carry out those responsibilities as part of the group. But AC members have one added responsibility to those listed above:

  • Make a commitment to be personally responsible and accountable for the welfare of the group during their term in office. (edit: Quack 688 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

This is the key point. It is this level of commitment, combined with the moral authority given by an election, which allows them to be effective representatives.

Depending on their workload, I don't see a problem with letting a council member delegate some of their maintenance work to other Esperanzans who have volunteered to help (perhaps those who ran for election, but narrowly missed out - can you have apprentice council members?), but only elected council members have the authority to sign off on the work and publish it.

A note about Esperanzan admins: Like on Wikipedia in general, they police articles and implement policy, but they don't decide policy any more than regular members do. As admins, they are also expected to carry themselves at a high standard. But clear distinctions should be made:

  • A Wikipedia admin is a janitor with a badge. They are chosen by Wikipedians, to maintain the entire site, and are given the authority to deal with troublemakers. If they don't want anything to do with Esperanza, however, they shouldn't be forced to visit here as part of their job.
  • An Esperanzan admin is a janitor with a badge (and a green hat). The only difference between them and a regular admin is that they like visiting Esperanza. While here, they deal with maintenance and vandal issues the same way they deal with them everywhere else - Esperanza is just another stop on their patrol beat.
  • An Esperanzan council member is a repsentative. They are elected by Esperanzans, to act and speak on behalf of Esperanza.

Question - is there a conflict of interest in being both an admin and AC member? I don't believe so, but if there have been incidents in the past which have claimed such a conflict, I'd like to hear about them. Perhaps some extra guidelines are needed for such cases.

Another question - do you believe that instead of just AC members, any Esperanzan admin has the right to declare consensus on an Esperanzan thread? If so, can they declare consensus on any discussion, or only ones which go overwhelmingly in one direction, leaving close contests to AC members? Quack 688 09:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked reading all your above points Quack, and think that AC members pretty much do most of your suggestions already. The ones I would say aren't done now are
  • Make decisions with regard to the best interests of Esperanza - We usually start a discussion on something regarding the best interests of Esperanza, and then see what the consensus is.
  • Make a commitment to be personally responsible for the welfare of the group during their term in office. - While I, and I think all AC members, are perosnally responsible for the group, or feel personally responsible, it hasn't really ever come up before.
I'd like to get all your above points on the charter, as I think they acurately describe what it is the AC do. The only one I'm not sure of is "Make decisions with regard to the best interests of Esperanza ". I'm not sure how this would fit in with how the AC trys to find the consensus of an issue, and then act, but I'd like to see what others think about this.
In response to your two questions, I don't think that there is any COI with being an Admin and AC member, or at least none I can think of. And secondly, I think that depends on the situation. If there was a very big issue effecting the entire Esperanza, I wouldn't feel comfertable with just one person closing it, I'd like the AC as a group to look over it. However, it was preposed that we addopted Admin School a short while ago, and when Admin School was deleted, the closing admin also closed the discussion, and it was void. I had no problem with that, and it kept things moving. Thε Halo Θ 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to my previous post based on your thoughts -
"make decisions" - yeah, that just came out wrong. I've edited two bits there to fit in more with what's in the previous paragraph, that the AC can suggest actions for the group to take, and even lead debate, but not take action until, in their judgement, a consensus has been reached. Also, any member can make suggestions - they just carry a bit more weight when they come from the AC. As for the AC's power, they can still make decisions, but their authority for a decision comes from a consensus for that decision, not just from their seat on the council.
Personal responsibility - Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that you and your fellow AC members feel personally responsible for the group. I just think that it should be explicitly stated. Another way to look at it (which I've since added) is that AC members are accountable - both to the group, and for the group. The best analogy I can come up with for this is the "angry letter syndrome". The prefered method of criticism here on Wikipedia is to start a discussion, but people (not just Esperanzans) have the right to address criticism of a group at that group's leaders. This also fits in with the "public spokesperson" and "elected representative" aspects of the job. However, it's not appropriate to start spamming hundreds of regular group members and criticise that group.
(Note: this is for the group as a whole. No-one is responsible for the behaviour of an individual member but that member themselves.)
COI - I still haven't been able to think of a scenario where a conflict would occur. But addressing the issue now (if we can ever think of a damn example, that is!) might be preferable to being accused of a COI down the road.
Declaring consensus - I like the idea of scaling the system up or down based on the issue. "Passing contentious issues up" is another power I added. As for that case you mentioned with an admin closing the discussion after it was no longer relevant, that's more a case of book-keeping, or declaring consensus "after the fact", and I'm happy with that. (If the action happened before the discussion was closed, though, it would be worth noting that on the discussion.) Thanks again for your thoughts! Quack 688 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Knowing I came in a bit late, and apologizing for that, I would like to change the wording of point three, if possible, to something like "Suggest a course of action which is in the best interests of wikipedia as a whole as its primary goal, and in the interests of Esperanza in circumstances where the two do not conflict" or something like that. Otherwise, with the current phrasing, it could be interpreted as Esperanza looking out for itself first. Otherwise, I like the idea. Badbilltucker 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I'm happy to get comments anytime. Regarding what you said, the things I listed here were tasks that I feel the AC should be ultimately responsible for. I previously thought of the mission statement of Esperanza as "support contributions to the Wikipedia knowledge base through a variety of methods". AC members are elected by Esperanzans, for Esperanzans. However, by ensuring that Esperanza is healthy enough to carry out its mission, they are also strengthening Wikipedia indirectly.
Put it this way - a short-term view regarding where efforts should be directed suggests that Esperanzan pages and projects are a waste - editors should be redirected to work on "real" encyclopedia articles. However, if Esperanzan pages make some editors feel more positive about Wikipedia and contribute more in the future, then those pages benefit Wikipedia in the long term. AC members should use the same approach when suggesting courses of action. Quack 688 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't decide where to put this general comment in the discussions below, but I want to share a few thoughts on the structure of the governance. I'm not speaking for or against any proposed governance structures. The entire overhauling process has given the governance a good run for its money, and though things are tough, I think the fact that we have a larger group of people advising is helpful to all of our sanities. We're able to bounce ideas off each other, work out issues, and just talk. Just recently, Esperanza decided to expand the council so that the leadership of Esperanza would be a broader group. When I imagine one person being appointed to oversee Esperanza actions, even if they're not in any leadership capacity, I pale to think at how stressful a situation such as this would be on them. If we can manage to work without a governence, then the problems won't be as notable, but then we have to figure out if Esperanza will just descend into anarchy if that happens. I don't know if it will, and I don't know if it won't. Just wanted to throw that out there, and remind everyone that we've all had plenty of shouting and arguing over at the MfD, and if we could tone that down a bit here, that would be lovely. -- Natalya 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This will sound like a very dumb question, but what do the members of the council do, especially when contrasting one position against another, and as opposed to a regular member? This was never explained, to my knowledge, on the Esperanza main page when I first signed up. Thanks, --Kyoko 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the AC has the final say on what programs we implement into Esperanza. However, with this overhaul going on, I'm getting very confused myself.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
No-one knows because you don't need them... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
What they've done in the past have been outline in the above discussion in the Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance#Discussion section. -- Natalya 15:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

[edit] Keep

*Keep Per my above statements. Governance is necessary to enforce Wikipedia policy in Esperanza. DoomsDay349 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per all my above statements. Thε Halo Θ 18:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We need people to make bold decisions. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shreshth91.  Shardsofmetal  22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What would we be without a great governing body! Jam01 02:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The same as everyone else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Dev, I'm not so sure you're getting the point. You constantly say "other WikiProjects get along just fine". Other WikiProjects are not as complex as Esperanza is! Esperanza comprises a large amount of people, and we have rules that need enforcement. In a small WikiProject, it can be done by the fellows of the WikiProject, but not here; we need someone to keep it in line. Consistently, I tell you, the governors of Esperanza are no better than anyone else, nor do they claim power outside of Esperanza! They do not make such a claim, ever, but your argument seems to be that they do. DoomsDay349 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
For an organisation that promotes hope, you have a bizarre amount of troublemakers that need to be kept "in line". My point is that councillors should not have power within Esperanza - you just think they do. With the recent slimming down of your programs, there's also less to do. Let me suggest something. Abolish the entire council and have a single secretary to highlight ongoing discussions and suchlike (even the secretary will probably not be needed if you set up that noticeboard as planned) for a provisional period of four months. If you're in total chaos and need to be told what to do, re-elect the council. But if you don't... then you've liberated yourself froma massive millstone around your necks. In fact, with this new suggestion, I think you ought to restart the voting. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...good propositions...my true issue is that if we don't tell Esperanza who leads them, and then, say someone reverts the new Lounge, if any, they can say "Hey, you're not the leader, you can't do that" producing edit wars and 3RR violations abound. But your proposition is a good one; we need more support for this anyway. I'll move your proposal to a new vote area. DoomsDay349 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's what acquiring consensus is all about. ;D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make a slight change: we elect 2 people. I got this idea from Ancient Rome where 2 consuls were elected to form the monarchy branch of the government. The 2 consuls could make decisions over certain stuff. However, one of the consuls has the power to veto the other consul, making a balance of power.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is, Ed, that decisions should be made by the community, like they are in the rest of Wikipedia. Why hand power over to a group of elected councillors when a good debate would be more fruitful? Points raised in one discussion could inspire other people to suggest new things - it's a constant learning and improvement process - just like we're doing now. We can't do that if other people are making decisions for us. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...you know Dev, I am beginning to understand what you're saying. In fact, I pretty much agree entirely with you now. However, I still think we need the temporary trial period to see how it works, and also we should continue with meetings, but now with the entire Esperanza community. DoomsDay349 03:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep From what I have seen on XfD's, I don't believe that consensus can always be reached without someone to adjudicate when that consensus is reached. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Wikipedia has admins for a reason, and I think Esperanza Councillors should fulfill that role within the scope of Esperanza. I don't like the idea of an Admin who wants no part of Esperanza being put into a position to resolve disputes regarding Esperanza business.
  • Keep, per what's been said above. I, like The Halo, have seen it work at all levels (as AG, Council and regular member). Esperanza just seems to run smoother with them. I don't see the problem with the current system. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We need a strong governance - • The Giant Puffin • 22:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I haven't seen how it is useless, and I'm not sure how it could be corrupt. There's nothing wrong with having someone overseeing a project, in my experience it is usually much more beneficial to the project as a whole. Furthermore, I have seen no harm come from it, so there's really no reason to get rid of something that works. --Limetom 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, mostly per Celestianpower. I think the goals related above by Quack are pretty good, and generally describe what the council does at the moment. Also, I wouldn't be opposed to a name change if it spoke of something less bureaucratic and more of general overseers. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - reluctantly, with modifications of some kind later. While I agree in spirit with Dev that having a single person in charge might make decision-making easier, it also creates a situation where autocracy could creep in. Having two people would not resolve that difference necessarily. My personal favored option would be to have a 5 or 7 person board, and, in the event that no proposal receives a majority (over half) of the votes of the total board, then to have the decision delayed and make the matter the subject of a referendum of the membership to take place over the next month, or something like that. We might also shorten the length of terms of the board members to prevent entrenched parties making decisions. But I regretfully see more potential problems with a one or two person governance than with the existing structure. Badbilltucker 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. - I think imposing some sort of term limitations, probably later, might be a reasonable idea as well. Maybe no more than one year on the board, and then being ineligible to run for election for another year, might help prevent the idea of Esperanza being run by a cadre seeking power. Not that I'm saying that the above is the case, because I don't think it is, but simply to prevent having the question ever being raised in the first place. Badbilltucker 20:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A Strong Keep per the fact we need some way to prevent anarchy WikieZach| talk 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The council don't have special powers, they simply keep Esperanza organized. NauticaShades 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep under Dev920's Proposal

  • Keep per Dev and other stuff above. DoomsDay349 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I like this idea too. However, if required, I think we could have multiple secretaries. Since they have no additional power, and are just performing maintenance, I don't think there will be any conflicts. But that's for later, and only if necessary.  Shardsofmetal  06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Either we have 3 or more, or none at all. Thε Halo Θ 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As I've said above, a group of "leaders" (I use that word very lightly) can not only share out the work load better, but also can have discussion, which leads to resolution to problems. I also think Esperanza just following one "leader" is far more likely to give us criticisms then a small group. If we decided to endeavour forward without any leadership, that's fine, but I think doing things half way would be bad for Esperanza. Thε Halo Θ 13:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And as I have said repeatedly, there should not be an elite who discuss and resolve problems without consulting the wider community. Outside Esperanza, a solution is proposed by anyone, and the community discusses it until a consensus is reached. I do not understand why Esperanza should be any different. A secretary is there for basic administration purposes (which should be light as more responsibility can and should be given to Ezperanzans at large), NOT leadership, as I have made clear. I do not understand why you cannot see this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly see what you mean, I simply don't at all agree with you. That distinction is very important to make. Thε Halo Θ 15:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I was just concerned that you seemed to be repeatedly referring to leadership when I made clear that I didn't think the secretary would have any kind of a leadership role. If you do get that, then that's cool. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Halo, so you're basically saying that you don't agree with how all of Wikipedia runs. OK, so how about this; we simply remove the entire governance for a period of two months, rather than four, and see how it runs. If we find that we've fallen apart, then we'll reinstate. All we really need is a few upstanding members of the community, there's little sense in throwing out titles to people for no real reason. DoomsDay349 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, hardly any aspect of wikipedia works in the way mentioned above. Apart from Jimbo, you'll usually find a group of people who make decisions. There is not but one Admin, one bureaucrat or one member of ArbCom. There are a group of the above mentioned. However, if the majority of Esperanzains wish to have no council, I'm fine with that. However, having one secretary, seems to me to be the wrong path to go down. Thε Halo Θ 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Admins, bureacrats and ArbCom are there to perform binding actions - obviously, there needs to be more than one of them. However, to take Wikiprojects as the closest example, these run without any visible leadership. Some Wikipedians take the lead in working in it, certainly, but they have absolutely no greater say or weight than any other Wikipedian. It is this model that I am proposing, because it intergrates Esperanza much better to the Wikipedian community at large. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I share The Halo's sentiments exactly. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We've not got any power, or any greater say in what goes on. We only give direction to discussions, interpret consensus and keep Esperanza ticking over. That's all. Full stop. —Celestianpower háblame 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Then I do not see why you should not lay down the reins for a few months and see if that's true. If Esperanza dissolves into chaos without the council, restore them. If it doesn't, then the accusation that Esperanza is too bureaucracy laden is laid to rest, once and for all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep under Dev920's Proposal but with Ed's modification

  • Support since I made it!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. What exactly are your modifications? Sorry, I can't recall them. Bleh I'm stupid. Found them...give me a second to read. DoomsDay349 02:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If each has the power to veto the other, then we get into edit wars and 3RRs. Not good. Also, two is not enough. I think the best system is the one we use now, but of course we need a trial period without them to see if we really do need it. DoomsDay349 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons above. Thε Halo Θ 13:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per The Halo and above. I'm agreeing with him a lot today :). —Celestianpower háblame 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep, but rename

  • Comment - Governance gives the wrong connotation to what you're describing. Why don't you call them a committee of "clerks"? Note: It's also the term that Arbcom uses for those who do such work. Using "clerk" would seem to be similar to how one ad-"ministers", or acts as a "secretary", but still may make some determinations for the community (Minister/Secretary of State, for example). - jc37 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a pretty good idea. Changing just the name of something can completely change others' perceptions of it. --Limetom 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Would the name change just be for Governance, or also the Advisory Council (sometimes known as the Esperanza council) and Admin General? Thε Halo Θ 12:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Advisory Council doesn't sound too bad to me, but I would say both Governance and Admin General would need a name change. Can't think of any ideas off the top of my head, though. --Limetom 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Wikipedia%7EEsperanza_Overhaul_Governance_7202.html"