Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Yay! A start

Yay, we finally have a charter started. What purpose do the traches serve, and it is really necessary to have them? --HappyCamper 02:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The tranches decide when a term begins and ends as well as setting the date for elections for that group of Assemblians. The precedent for tranches is Arb Com's system, but our tranche system is much more accessible giving people an opportunity to be elected to the Assembly three times a year rather than once every three years. It's not necessary but it definitely makes entry into the Assembly more accessible and Esperanza more stable, since the Assembly is not replaced all at once, and most importantly it's an excuse to use cool non-standard English characters. -JCarriker 14:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charter Problem

Amusingly enough, under this charter, I don't believe I qualify for membership. :) Figures. Also, I don't understand the "tranches." Perhaps it's just that the term is unfamiliar to me; could someone explain it? --Jen Moakler 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Bleh, thats terrible. I remember when I was somewhat new and I saw to vote for the board of trustees you needed 400 edits and I was like HOLY CRAP! 400?! So I will now be lowering the bar to 150 edits. And even if you're not over it Jen, you were an early supporter so of course you're allowed :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha. :) Thanks. --Jen Moakler 05:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time!

Why do we have to wait 2 weeks before joining? I've been in Wikipedia for 3 days, but I have over 200 edits! -User:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny/Sig-(01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Even with the higher number of edits, the requirement simply does not apply to you; it would be a very dangerous precedent to allow retroactive membership requirments. Per your tranche question, please see above. Thanks. -JCarriker 15:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Just what we need. Another process of fake rules or guidelines designed for everyone except the process designers' buddies! This is supposed to prevent or reduce the probability of future forks? 8) A mediator suggested I check you guys out but I think you will soon have enough of your own problems without worrying about mine. It is also reassuring to see that you codify respect for the god-king's divine right to rule. "Jimmy says ..." has certainly scaled well so far. No doubt it will be even better with a professional Board of compensated non participating experts selecting their preferences from the efforts of the soon to arrive thousands of appointed/volunteer committees. Perhaps a SciFi version/skin of the arbcom would be useful in retaining participation from depressed or grumpy teenage mutant ninja turtles? Just out of curiousity, is the Member of the Stacked Board alleged to be participating in "Esperanza" one of the appointed or elected ones? Finally, what is the point of limiting "hope" to only those with 150 tagged edits if the goal is to reduce the probability of forks? Sounds more like some of the early gimmicks proposed to extract additional work from participants without ever engaging in any serious policy discussion, agreement, or ratification. Consensus established by fiat or "Larry says ..." when the group appeared to favor the cabal's obviously reasonable position. I will read on, perhaps your charter has sufficient flexibility to fix itself later. Elected officials is certainly an innovation .... assuming of course that you have a reliable way of authenticating or counting the votes. Is that the purpose of the 150 edit tags? One sock puppet, one vote? 70.110.48.26 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

A lot of what was on the page is now contained in the charter. Thus, I would appreciate it were someone to remove the redundancy (i.e. removing from the main part what is already in the charter). R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too much bureaucracy!!!!

I think that this association has too much bureaucracy!! I mean, why do we need an Assembly, and a General Administrator (or whatever it is called!)? You may say that it's just for fun, right? But the goal of esperanza is not playing around with the government thingy!--E xir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 10:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel so, I am inclined to think that a charter that fits easily onto a single page is actually rather simplistic. Esperanza was always going to be a more stuctured enviroment than the general wikipedia community, and indeed has been from its inception. I regret you are displeased with it, but please look at the charter again— it's not nearly as bloated as you portray it as being; I hope ultimately you can see that. I have been over joyed at the response to the idea of Esperanza, but ultimatley Esperanza should be what it was intended to be and as such I am only willing to compromise so far. -JCarriker 15:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is a governance structure at all continues to be the foremost reason why I won't sign here. I see no benefit to Esperanza at large in ranking some members above others (yes, it does). Why not reach those decisions as a group? Do you forsee problems with decision making? Elections are as evil as the votes they involve and explicitly pit one member against another, tooth-and-nail. That cannot be reconciled, to my mind, with a friendly, huggable organisation. What was Esperanza intended to be? A group devoted to making others feel better, or a group devoted to making others feel better, but where some members of the group are ranked above others? -Splash^talk 00:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with Splash here. You do understand that this is probably the reason why we only have fifty people signed up: it seems oxymoronic to think that WikiLove could come from a "bureaucratic" structure. I think Esperanza is a great idea; I want to see it succeed. But I don't think that a committee appointed by an Admin Gen to research WikiStress is going to get far. It's like the government: lots of committees, research panels and studies, and no real work accomplished. Why can't we have a looser structure? And evil votes increase bad feelings and stress, the exact opposite what we want. I think an advisory committee might be better. That way, we can still have some leadership, not under one person, but be "loose" in our governing. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. ~~There should be no government at all.~~ I think we should only have a advisory comitee, just as what Bratsche has said. Every one should be treated equally, and a wikipedia newbie should have as much a say as, say, the founder. I might consider quitting if Esperanza remains bureaucratic. E xir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 09:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And also, we all should have a say in the charter, rather it being given to us. That's how Wikis work. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 12:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I may agree. We should probably get rid of the congress like assembly, yet keep the admin general, as a leader is always helpful. That way, only one election, and little bureaucracy. Let the assembly be everyone in the organization, with the single leader as the admin general. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the "leader" intended to do? --HappyCamper 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

1) TBD 2) leaders are always good to provide direction. Right now powers are unknown, (see #1) but they'll be somewhat of a figurehead. Leadership is good. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the change to having an advisory committee is a good one. I like idea of people being recognised in order to benefit from their wisdom rather than so much for their authority :) Lisa 02:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was part of the point ; - ) R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a significant improvement. I'd still prefer no leadership, and rely on WP:BOLDness and WP:COOPERATIONness but a small guiding group (possible new name there) will do little harm and plenty of good. One question: being as I haven't followed everything to do with Ez from the start, the language of III.A is a little peculiar: three chief responsibilities? I think it just needs a brushing up-to-date. I think you also mean that the researchers would report back to the Ez community rather than committee as a whole? -Splash^talk 02:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I still believe leadership is necissary just for direction. Much like Jimbo is somewhat our leader and its good he is too. I say this thinking of the recent 'unsourced images deleted in 7 days' thing. Were anyone but Jimbo to say this, would the community agree? No, you need an authority to do something like this. I can't picture Esperanza needing something like this, but that was an example out of a hat. Leadership really is good. And I changed committee to community. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have decided that I will not leave esperanza after all. :) --E xir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 09:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with bureaucracy here. I do agree that there should be some kind of leadership, otherwise things will simply sink into anarchy or chaos. So I would propose we either have a "leader" although I can see how some might be uncomfortable with this. Or there should be a panel or "leading commitee" in that case. I mean Wikipedia also has administrators, stewards, bureaucrats, and it's good to have those positions, don't you agree? I think maybe the exact nature and mission should be clearer, for example how exactly to help a user in need? For example if a member is involved in an edit war, or is a victim of stalking, verbal abuse, etc. do we all collectively try to help? Or should the user only be able to post his/her concerns in a forum that is located here?

I also think that higher membership should be awarded only to users who have shown continously their good-will, patience, dedication to helping other users, etc... because I believe this club should be for excellence. Imagine a user joining Esperanza, grandly saying how s/he is a member, but never doing anything for anyone or being difficult in reality. Gryffindor 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not yet an Esperanzian, I will hazard an answer to that. Ez is an outward looking group of friendly WPians. It is not an 'award', it is not a 'reward'. It does not need the multi-level hierarchy of WP as a whole - it would be casting itself in the mould of the structure that has spawned the problems it hopes to give a helping hand solving. It is not a "club for excellence". It is not a "club" at all. Someone only ever being difficult in reality will simply not be recognised as an effective Ezian; to create a removal procedure would be a mistake. It strikes me that some people view Ez as something that should be handed out to the Good People and denied to the Less Good People. I doubt an organisation formulated on that basis will solve any problems at all. As it is structured at present, and as it formed initially, it is a looseish knit bunch of WPian who want to cheer other WPians up when they are feeling down. That's a very simple task, and it only takes a very simple mission and organisation to do it. Indeed, it is a mission that can be executed in the absence of the existence of Ez, and Ez should remember that. Forming Ez is, as I see it, an attempt to produce a set of ambassadors for that mission. Imho, anyway. -Splash^talk 22:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Leaders hold stuff together-User:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny/Sig-(01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Seperate Talk, and a few other ideas

Hi, first off the charter looks really cool to me (perhaps a wee bureaocratic, did I spell that right?). Should we not have a seperate special (not "special" in the wiki sense, like wathclists, etc) page for people to come and talk about their problems, grievances, etc. Or perhaps just for a sympathetic ear. The talk page would be linked descriptively on the project page and be monitored by the members. Leaving this talk page for members (and non-members, in some cases) to discuss policy and such. Winding off, would it be a good idea to have more barnstars? Linked on the project page if they are not already. Thats all. Thanks fellow Esperanzians! Banes 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The charter has been designed to direct how Esperanza should be administrated and to offer guidence on the general direction it should always be headed in, while letting the exact course, or courses, be determined by Esperanzians themselves. I have moved Charter talk to the Charter talk page at your request. - JCarriker 15:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I presume the FAQ page is for people to come and be appreciated or learn more about the project? Banes 05:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good, but...

This is a fine document about how the organisation is to be run, but how about some principles? Some aims to be achieved? Sorry this is short, gotta dash... [[Sam Korn]] 17:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Something like "Founding priciples" or "Statement of principles" and an expansino of mission statment. Lisa 03:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] zOMG edit'd

I dissolved the idea of an assembly and instead made the assembly into the whole of esperanza. However I still believe leadership neccisary, and I also added a very small (4 member) advisory committee to watch over the admin general. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that should be enough to address the concerns of most of those who opposed the Assembly. Besides, the Ж, Ñ and ç tranches seemed a little bit odd... Tito xd 00:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Feels less secluded and elitist now :-). -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 01:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outreach Program

Should the project develop an outreach program, whereby anon editors (and others that aren't anon) with long histories of good editing can be encouraged to both register a username and to possibly join us. Also, is there the possiblity of seeking out those that have been made to feel as though they're all "alone" and work with them to calm them down, help them understand the meaning of concensus and to help them seek out others who share similar article interests....perhaps a message board of fellow wikipedians in need of help can be added..just a few thoughts of mine.--MONGO 00:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please mention this at Esperanza's main talk page, or better yet the subpage for proposals, make a subsection for it and we'll decide on proposals listed there at another time. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

er, find the correct link at the main page. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My browser is not working

I can't seem to read the comments on this page. Whenever I load it, the font is about size pt. 2, all orange, and I cannot read anything...so I'm typing in the dark.

Let's take a moment here to recognize that a lot of work went into it. *yippie*! *yippie*!

Now the more serious stuff: To be honest, the charter expresses something which is divergent from what I thought Esperanza would be like. I'm not sure if having a charter at the moment is absolutely critical. I would imagine that the Wikipedians who signed up for this project recognize the need to share and spread the goodness around here, regardless of the charter. --HappyCamper 01:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that pt. 2 orange stuff might be a MediaWiki bug. That has happened to me a couple of times, and purging the cache always seemed to work. I'm not sure what you mean about the charter, though. This is a wiki: what would you like? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looks good

I like its overall simplicity, and the reduction in perceived bureaucracy. It probably does not need to state its reasoning for modifications within the charter itself (e.g. at the beginning of section C; think of how the U.S. constitution would read if the different sections explained how they came about). That stuff can move to a talk page. Overall: I like the idea, the organization, the positive focus, and I think it can help make Wikipedia a better place: we sorely need people, and groups of people, dedicated to just that task. Nice job. Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Be Bold Esperanzians!

I want you to be bold with the charter, but not TOO bold. Do not create new sections of the charter (as I did with the advisory councel) without consensus. I enjoy and appreciate the work done by Bratsche and Lisa among others by clearing up, formalizing, and copyediting the charter. If you read a sentence and say hey, that doesn't sound right... then fix it :) R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoa there Lisa, get a thesaurus, the word Referendum appears a few times too many ; - ) R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry :$ a bit tired. And know so many people are watching with thesaurus in hand :) Lisa 03:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza changes

Copied from User:Redwolf24's talk page
Looks good, but I have one question. Does the Admin Gen sit on the advisory council, or do they act a bit independantly. Since there are four members, a tie could be inevitable. Like the U.S. Senate, the Admin Gen could break a tie, but if they are impeaching him/her, this could be a problem. How about this: in the case of impeachment, the advisory council must recommend unanimously to the general Esperanza body a vote of no confidence. What do you think? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that was my original intent, but then I realize the admin general doesn't do too much but provide direction, and most of the advisory council just makes sure he's not an idiot. In any needed functions for the advisory council that we may deem necissary, the admin general would be part of it, yes. And for impeachment, 3 to 1 would not impeach, it would have to be unanimous, which would be very hard. The council would then be the pro tempore leaders. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks a little simpler now. How much power over the other Admins on the project does the Admin Gen have anyway? Banes 05:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

None. The similarity between names is an unfortunate coincidence. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] October 10 2005 Elections to the Advisory Council

That's my hopeful date, meaning we'd have to get some nominees before then. I hope we can muster up enough people. Then, we will have the two with the most votes have their term until February 28th (Unless they choose to be in tranch b) and the two with the 3rd and 4th place votes end December 31st. The admin generals term shall end December 31st, except for that shall be the day every year. Thus, JCarriker is our admin general of 2005. The tranches for the advisory committee will be as such:

Tranch a ending dates:

December 31st
April 30th
August 31st

Tranch b ending dates:

February 28th/29th
June 30th
October 31st (ineffective for 2005)

Of course dates for the first committee will be odd as it IS the first commitee. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Will there be any qualifications to be a member of the advisory commitee or to be Administrator-General above those to be a member of Esperanza? I was thinking of, if any: a certain number of edits; a certain amount of time being a Wikipedian; a certain amount of time as an Esperanzian; no edit wars; a certain number of Esperanzians supporting your nomination. Also, perhaps, in each tranch, one of the people elected should be an Admin and one not? Just some thoughts. -- JDH Owens^{talk | Esperanza}]] 19:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Bleh. The point of Esperanza is that everyone's supposed to be mostly equal, and as long as they haven't done anything specifically bad in the past month they're fine. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] referenda changes

I have made some changes to this section of the charter, removing some of the history as someone else here had suggested. I also added a timeline for referenda... suggesting that if we encounter dissent, we work for a maximum of 21 days to try to reach consensus, but failing that, then we hold a referendum over 7 days.

Do we need any other clarification? Perhaps we should state that a referendum must be held no later than 21 days after a motion to do so has been endorsed by a percentage of the membership? What percentage -- 10? 20?

Also, do we need to ratify the charter at some point, and then protect it from further editing? At what point do we signal that the WP:BOLD policy no longer applies to this particular page? Mamawrites 10:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding was that bold edits to the charter aren't and wouldn't be generally accepted, just like a bold edit changing Wikipedia:No personal attacks to allow certain personal attack wouldn't be accepted. I don't see any reason to protect it, though, or otherwise discourage edits that do not change the meaning. Policy pages aren't protected, and shouldn't be: page locking is supposed to be a temporary measure. Re a percentage, I think that the Wikipedian idea of consensus should hold through. The last referendum didn't have any close calls, and I expect that Esperanzians can come to a consensus without voting or directly implemented percentages or voting measures. That's just my two cents as an EspCom member, though. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Changes to the Charter

In Section IIIB, it states that the Advisory Committee can trigger a new Admin-General election in the event of his wrongdoing. It is unclear what constitutes wrongdoing (i.e. in or out of Esperanza), and also what should be done if (as is admittedly unlikely) they eject the A-G in bad faith. I think changes need to be made. JDH Owens^{talk | Esperanza 14:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)}

I believe that any wrong-doing actions would probably be handed from above. For example Essjay could go and delete the Community Portal, which would most likely be condemned by either Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee. It would then be up to the Advisory Committee to determine if that wrong-doing would make Essjay unfit for Esperanza service. In the case where an action is not defined by ArbCom or Jimbo, I think the Advisory Committee would take it upon themselves to make a recommendation to the community. However, this is all very hypothetical and improbable. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Councillors...

This sounds a lot like CJ's governance, prior to reforms. I suggest simplifying it: 7 councillors, no AG, one tranche. Computerjoe 's talk 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You should have spoken up in the discussion! :P. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit proposal

I think that this article needs to be copyedited, as it is too formal, approaching gobbledygook. It would be a good idea to follow the rules of "plain English". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetRolller 3D (talk • contribs).

[edit] Tossing my hat in...

Wikipedia has been both a blessing and a real source of stress. Now that I'm back, I want to find other ways to help. I seem to have been Wikipedia's designated ambassador to autistic users at one time; I'd like to do more to help all users. Troll-slaying and anti-vandalism patrolling are rewarding, but it's much nicer to be of help to someone who's been down the wikistress path...and I should know. Any arm of this site with Essjay at the helm is 110% OK by me and I'd like to be a part of it. What next? - Lucky 6.9 07:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We'd be glad to have you as a part of Esperanza - it will probably help you to look at Wikipedia:Esperanza and Wikipedia talk:Esperanza; this page is a bit defunct from the project! And as a note, Essjay was a past-Admin Gen, and I fill that capacity now. -- Nataly a 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership

Hi, I am a Wikipedia user and Esperanza caught my attention. I am interested to join, but do not understand the requirements. Do you get an automatic message requesting your participation or must you sign up manually? If so, how and where can I sign up? I would appreciate it very much if anyone would help me. Thanks in advance! Zachary crimsonwolf 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Zachary! Anyone can join Esperanza, providing they meet the requirements, pretty much that you have about 150 edits, have been at Wikipedia for a few weeks, and want to uphold the Esperanza values. It doesn't look like you're quite there yet, but you're welcome to add yourself to list of users who want to join but don't meet the requirements yet. Let me know if you have any other questions! -- Nataly a 15:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've met most of the requirements, but I am a little short on the edits...well, thanks again! See you when I'm in!Zachary crimsonwolf 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi.

I wanted to join, so, yeah. The concept of Wikipedia not being a bunch of strangers typing articles sounded cool, so I thought I'd apply. I have over twice the amount of required edits and I've been here for a long while. Hope you guys except me. <_< The Captain Returns 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Wikipedia_talk%7EEsperanza_Charter_9ba2.html"