Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:ESP/G

This sub-section of Esperanza's talk page is for all discussions on the governance of Esperanza. It is hoped that by keeping these discussions separate from Esperanza's main talk page, the spirit of Esperanza can be carried on more easily by all members, while any interested members can still be involved in governance discussions. Anytime an issue is brought up here this requires the attention of all Esperanza members, it will also be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza.

Contents 1 Need for a ruling body 2 Two pieces of charter reform 3 FireFox 4 Governance Project Page 5 Debates 6 Overhaul

[edit] Need for a ruling body

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Esperanza

I had stated this above, but didn't receive any reply from a council member, so I'll repost this.

I don't really understand the need for a Council/Assembly. What do they actually do? Make high profile policy decisions? Or is it just another line of esoteric bureaucracy? Policy decisions IMO should be made solely by polling the community as a whole. Why should a bunch of people be "higher" than the others. All this "Charter", "Assembly", "Advisory Council" are making Esperanza less welcoming and more an organisation for the élite few. Proposed programs would not require all Esperanzians to be polled; why even the recent elections did not see all the Esperanzians turning out to vote, far from it in fact; neither did this poll. We could have a specific deadline, in which Esperanzians could vote and the results at the end of the deadline, whatever they be, would be accepted by the community as a whole; there would be no need for a (redundant IMO) enforcing body, which promotes inequality and a sense of "status" in Esperanza. ---May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To this I received the following reply. I have replied to the following comment within my post itself:

The council/assembly are here to approve any change or suggestion that would affect Esperanza as a whole. I see where you're coming from about the polling of every Esperanian, but I think that, in itself, would cause us problems. The ammount of proposed programs would mean that we have an amazing ammount of things to vote for, and that would take up a lot of our time, time which I personally feel, could be put to better use. These are just my thoughts on the subject, and maybe it would be better to get a council/assembly member to comment? :) Thε Halo ^Θ 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Halo's reply, does sum it up very well. In my opinion, too much voting is a bad thing, and it's not like the programs are awfully controversial, they are only approved if there is a consensus of Esperanzians who think it is a good idea, the whole process is very open, and anyone can chime in on ideas, how they can be improved, if they are good/bad ideas etc. Even if a couple of people chime in to say the idea is good, then it will most likely be passed. It is really low key, and adding multiple votes could well clog things up. Bear in mind though, that I am of the opinion that voting is decidedly evil, that is the position I am coming from. :P But, in my view at least, the programs approval is not the most important function of the leadership at all. In my opinion, the leadership are there to set an example of civility, to help things run smoothly, to make posts like the one I'm making now. :) Esperanza's founder has said that the project was founded as a place to escape the "mob rule of wikipedia" so to speak. This is goal is furthered in my view by a leadership.

As for the matter of Elitism, well, I didn't get any new buttons when elected, I have no more "power" than anyone else here. The only difference for me is that as a member of the leadership I feel a greater responsibility not to be uncivil, to be polite and helpful as an advert for Esperanza. As Wikipedians we should all of course feel that responsibility, but I feel it all the more now. The leadership are all people, who are there to help and serve others and the project, we are not a cabal, we are not there to keep everybody else in check. Sorry for the over long reply, I'll stop rambling now. :) Regards -- Banes 09:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point; voting is not required, so The Halo's, yours and my opinions match. I myself have said that open-ended polling is the solution, and therefore Council members would not be required to apporve votes. The only purpose of a council, is therefore to make its members more civil and responsible to the community. Members who are truly dedicated to Esperanza would not require any sort of incentive to promte civility and be more responsible; others couldn't care less either way. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You said that making people Councillors would make them more responsible to Esperanza. Well here is an IRC chat I just had with Celestianpower. What would you say now?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image removed, per "Channel rules: Play nice with others, don't post logs publicly, don't abuse the bots". --JoanneB 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Open ended polling would not work for every single decision. I think the proposed programs page is a proof of that: proposals 'linger' there for ages, with a bit of feedback here and there, but decisions take ages. I think it's good to have a couple of people in which the Esperanza members have placed their trust (by voting for them) who take those decisions, after listening to as much community feedback as possible. Otherwise, this page will be one poll after another, and people will either get sick and tired of it or get fed up with all the 'hassle', every time. I can see your concers, when I was an Esperanza council member myself I wondered, especially richt before and during the 'council wikibreak' if a council was the best thing to have. However, I'm still afraid that an organisation without any leadership will fall to pieces, and I don't think it's a good idea to try if Esperanza could do without. --JoanneB 11:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joanne. Someone has to bite the bullet and accept these proposals. If it's a set of people's job (which they have been elected for) to do this, that makes it easier for them. I'm hoping next meeting, we will discuss these proposals and choose to archive/enact at least a few of them.

As to that IRC chat, there are two things I must say. Firstly, posting of logs is against channel rules, as Joanne pointed out. Esperanza IRC is a non-binding, informal chat room and logs jeopardise the friendly atmosphere: "I'd better watch what I say, else people will use it against me" just kills a room's pleasantness. Secondly, I believe you took that wrongly (because I didn't explain myself properly). At that time, I was very busy elsewhere, so didn't want to compose a proper reply, that gave it justice. I was not saying in the slightest that I wasn't willing to discuss this. Thanks and kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Proposed Programs page shows the Councillors' failure. They should be keeping the proposals moving, fulfilling requests; but their complacency is shown, and moreover their unnecessity. If they are unable to do such a minor job, then they are really not required. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the Proposed Programs page shows a general lack of interest from esperanza in general. There is not nearly enough discussion there (I have never discussed anything there, so please, don't consider my comment judgemental). I feel that what the council does in this sort of proposed programs situation is to act like admins at the AfD. Once they see that a consensus has been reached, they decied if we, as a comunity wish to accept a program or not. Because of this, I feel that we have let ourselves down, not the council letting it's elector down. If we really want to have the proposed programs page more active, we must go there, make our opinions heard, and let the council see what the community think. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I just read something about proposed programs "failing" and such. I don't see it this way. If a program isn't active, what does that mean? It means that people are either not interested or are busy doing other things. No big deal. The programs that are active must be the ones people really want to be involved in (I know of admin coaching and the userpage award, as two examples). Our activity is the result of our interest, and we shouldn't beat ourselves up over failed projects when we are (as a group) certainly doing a lot in other areas. Just 2 more cents, Fang Aili ^talk 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many sentiments in this thread that I would agree with. I do not feel that the advisory council should be any more bureaucratic than it needs to be, and it is my hope that we are not very bureucratic to start with! However, I do feel that some kind of leadership is important for Esperanza, or for any organization, for that matter. Discussion is always the best way to decide on anything, but there will always be occasions where a decicive decision is needed, and that is when I feel the advisory council comes in.

It is my hope that the advisory council works to make the day-to-day running of Esperanza for all of its members as smooth as possible. Take the proposed programs, for example. Anyone in Esperanza can put up an idea for the program, and then anyone in Esperanza can add their comments, thoughts, feelings, and opinions on it. The programs take shape while they are being discussed, and once they have become definite enough, they are put into practice. The important part is the development of the programs, which any Esperanza member who chooses may have a hand in. The advisory council simply takes care of taking those well-developed programs and making them tangible, which then allows all Esperanza members to benefit from them.

As a side note, I mentioned previously that the backlog on the Proposals page will soon be taken care of, and I appreciate everyone's patience on this matter.

There have been many of the previous discussions on this matter, most of which I believe are contained in the 11th archive (it sounds like the The Eleventh Hour :). The topic of Esperanza's leadership has been brought up before, and reading how things went in the past can always be interesting. -- Natalya 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, puh-leeez. Based on the volume of chatter on this page on these topics, I continue to have the impression that what Esperanza does is spend most of its time talking about charter, council, elections and now whether or not a ruling body is needed. If there's a reason that Esperanza isn't more respected, it might be this.

Can we give the organizational blah-blah a rest and actually spend time doing stuff?

It's not fair to start taking potshots at the "ruling body" or whatever you want to call the Advisory Council just a few weeks after they were elected. Before we start up a discussion about whether or not a ruling body is necessary, let's give them a few months to actually do something. Then we can revisit whether or not the current structure is helping/hurting or irrelevant.

For my part, I'm going to go take a look at Proposed Programs and try to contribute to the evaluation process.

--Richard 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We welcome all input into the Proposed Programs - thanks. Anything that helps us decide makes choosing which are good/bad easier.

For future reference, I don't think it's a great idea to dismiss reasoned, civil discussion out of hand, though - your wording could be taken as ever so slightly uncivil... Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree with you CP, I think that Richard's got a point in so far as that we do seemed to get dogged down by discussions pertaining to the leadership an aweful lot. Maybe this is good for esperanza, to constantly evalulate itself. Maybe it isn't. I think it was Redvers though, that man of great speeches, who said it was a shame that we tore ourselves apart everytime we weren't needed in a wider sense (I'm paraphrasing). While I think that this discussion is a long way off from tearing ourselves apart, I do think it is taking up rather too much of our time. We have agreed as a community, many, many times, that a leadership is needed, whichever way we choose to have it. For an organisation with close to 600 members, there needs to be some kind of leadership. So let's take what's important from the thread, that th Proposed programs aren't receving a whole load of attention, and let's forget about the rest for now, and concentrate on getting some of those programs up and running and being great esperanzian and helping the community (which is, I assume, what we all like doing ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't commenting on the validity of his point, just the way he said it. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. Reagrds, —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

LOOK HERE PLEASE! for the start of a discussion of proposed programs. Thank you. WikieZach| talk 23:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't shout. Thanks! —Celestianpower ^háblame 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Celestianpower, I acknowledge that the tone that I employed in my earlier post was a bit edgy, bordering on incivility. I apologize although I will say that this is my style and it's not likely to change much. As you get to know me, I hope you will come to see past the edgy tone and appreciate the message behind it.

In my previous message, I really did want to express frustration with the immense amount of discussion about governance rather than about substance.

That said, I want all to know that I have lots of respect and gratitude for the work that the Advisory Council does. I respect everyone on the Council based on their contributions to this page over the past few months. I also understand that somebody has to work out the nitty-gritty details of governance and I am grateful for those who are spending the time to do so. I just wish that it wasn't being done on this page.

IMHO, there really is way too much discussion of governance here on the "main talk page" of Esperanza and the net impression that Esperanza is driven by politics and the details of governance can be quite off-putting to the average visitor or Esperanza member. Heck, it makes me want to hurl about every two weeks or so.

I would take this page off my watchlist but that would be tantamount to leaving Esperanza and I'm not ready to do that...yet.

It is my impression that there are a group of "politicos" (take this as a neutral term, not a derogatory one, please) who care deeply about governance. And then there are the rest of us who don't care much as long as there is governance and as long as it works smoothly. Thank goodness for the "politicos" who are willing to think through and hash out the details that the rest of us don't want to get involved in.

Consider it like sausage-making. Somebody has to make the sausage and the rest of us just want to eat it. So, can we consider hiding some of the details of the sausage-making?

To accomplish this, I would like to propose that discussion of governance be moved to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. If there are important issues that need the consensus of the entire Esperanza membership, then raise them here. Otherwise, keep the discussions of governance on a separate subpage that is linked to from this page and from WP:ESPERANZA. Those who want to read the blow-by-blow debates over governance can do so by jumping to that page.

Respectfully submitted,

--Richard 09:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea (along the lines of something I was thinking about, I swear!! ;), and one that I would be very interested in getting involved in. I'm thinking that it would cut down on a lot of stress that happens here through disagrements about leadership. Excellent idea Rich! Thε Halo ^Θ 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I also like that idea. However, I can't agree with your comment "consider it like sausage-making. Somebody has to make the sausage and the rest of us just want to eat it." There are always people like me--vegetarian anarchists :) The Ungovernable Force 10:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Chuckle... OK, here's a different analogy for you. Here in the United States, we have a cable channel called CSPAN which broadcasts live telecasts of the deliberations of the United States Congress. It's obviously a popular channel since it's been around for something like 20 years. On the other hand, there are millions of Americans who don't watch CSPAN. I'm one of them. I find that most of the time watching CSPAN is like watching paint dry. Now, the governance discussions about Esperanza are more interesting than CSPAN but I still don't want to read most of it. Sorry but I'm perfectly willing to trust the "politicos" to "do the right thing" as long as I get to check in on the discussion every once in a while and they promise to surface major issues here so I can put in my two cents on the biggies. --Richard 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not a member of Esperanza, I'll leave my two cents (partially to return Richardshusr's favour). I think in the Leadership section of the Esperanza page, you could include some information some of the duties of the Council. I think that while the whole of Esperanza proposes and discusses new ideas, the Coucil would enforce and implement them, while ensuring that Esperanza runs smoothly and doesn't fall apart. If you didn't waste so much time discussing on this, perhaps you'd spent your time on more productive things. For example, I posted a new section about Requests for feedback, but no one's reading or replying to it as all eyes are on a silly discussion about leadership. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I got up this morning, I thought "words and words about the need for a ruling body and not one word about RFF". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs).

Fantastic idea IMHO. It would be great to keep that sort of thing out of sight of the casual passer by. -- Banes 10:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a lovely idea. I have a feeling it will really help Esperanza get back to its roots, so to speak. We can concentrate on Esperanza's mission-related things here, and deal with all the less-related governance things there. They will still be wholeheartedly discussed, but won't bog down Esperanza's progress. If there are no objections, I'll move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance, and place a notice at the top of this page that all related issues should be discussed there. -- Natalya 22:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two pieces of charter reform

As was mentioned in the most recent newsletter, two pieces of charter reform have been proposed, and the straw polls for both of them are below. Both polls will run for a week, and will end at 23:59 UTC on Monday, August 21st.

For reference purposes, the charter may be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Charter.

These polls are now closed. -- Natalya 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: As the polls are separate, please vote in both.

---

1) Adding to the end of the Leadership section: "In the case that there is any dispute from a vacancy in the Council, or a rule in dispute, the Administrator General shall have the sole duty to determine the resolution. In the Case the Administrator General cannot complete that duty, then the Council will do it." (Originally proposed by Wikizach)

Support

• Support. Kukini 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is what our leadership is for. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. per the fact I proposed it; and per Halo WikieZach| talk 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Petros471 15:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

---

2) Replacing the Amending the Charter and Polling section: "The council can amend the charter, provided that they alert the rest of Esperanza. Should there be dissent in that amendment from 3 or more Esperanza members, the amendment will require a straw poll of the membership." (In an attempt to reduce the amount of polling necessary)

Support

• Fine with me although I'd be a happier if the text said "provided that discussion is held on the Esperanza Talk Page for one week prior to the amendment" rather than "that they alert the members". --Richard 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds good here! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Kukini 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds fine to me. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. per above WikieZach| talk 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although like Richard I would like there to be discussion first. Petros471 15:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposed

Comments

---

Thank you to everyone who participated, both pieces of charter reform haven been accepted. -- Natalya 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FireFox

While, of course, none of us really want to believe that FireFox has left forever, we should begin to disuss what we do if he really has gone. As we know, there were three runners up in the last election:

Blnguyen: 14
Ian13: 14
Petros471: 14

I think that "In the case that there is any dispute from a vacancy in the Council, or a rule in dispute, the Administrator General shall have the sole duty to determine the resolution. In the Case the Administrator General cannot complete that duty, then the Council will do it." fits this situation perfectly.

If the unthinkable does happen, and FireFox does leave us :( are we in agreement that Natalya shall choose his replacement? This is assuming that we wait to see if FireFox really has left, by which time the charter reform should have been passed (or failed, I guess).

Thε Halo ^Θ 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to wait a little while until we can (hopefully) find out what is happening with FireFox. If we find out that he actually has left (or don't find out anything in the near future), we'll go ahead with replacing him on the council. Thanks for bringing this up, Halo. -- Natalya 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've talked to FireFox, and he's still considering if/when he will be back to Wikipedia. We're going to give it till the beginning of September (not that far off) to see how things are, and then make a decision based on what he is planning on doing. -- Natalya 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. We'll have to try and keep hold of him, FireFox is such an assest to Esperanza ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 23:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

He is back now! May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is, of course, absolutly wonderful news!!! :) Thε Halo ^Θ 15:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governance Project Page

Does anyone mind if I add some info to the Governance project page? It'll be mostly made up of info that you can find elsewhere, but the red link's annoying me ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Like the leadership chart and such? Go ahead. :) -- Natalya 15:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get on with that then. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've started the page. It's not much, but I made it for anyone who happens to stumble across this place, and wants to see more about the leadership, etc. Of course, if anyone wants to add or rewrite a section, be my guest ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start. Thanks. --Richard 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debates

I think that we should hold debates during the elections for the EA AC. The reason for this is that candidates for the AC might not be putting information we want to hear. As a solution, we can have a debate when the EA community asks questions to the candidates. Their answers could help influence our votes.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to ask a candidate a question, just toddle along to their talk page and ask away, they wouldn't mind I'm sure. It would involve a lot of organisation, and I don't see much benefit. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 07:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here I'm afraid I don't see the value. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, user talk pages are best in my opinion. I'd be more-than-happy to answer any questions raised regarding my candidate statement, or anything else for that matter. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ed :( Still, it's always best to discuss every idea :) Thε Halo ^Θ 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed (and anyone else), you can feel free to edit my statement with questions or comments and I'll be sure to answer them as soon as possible. Inasfar as potential organisational problems that Celestianpower mentions, I can't forsee any. All one would have to do is copy the same question on each candidate's statement to form a debate-style atmosphere. I think added questions would be invaluable in giving the candidates another venue to express his/her opinions and also to the potential voters, for they will have more insight on the candidates with which to better make their respective decisions. Cheers all :) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think part of Celestianpower's point would be that having debates would make things much more formal than they need to be (possibly even verging on RfA-ness, which doesn't really seem appropriate). Questions are always welcome to be asked of the candidates, but their statments (if they even choose to make any) are really places for personal expression and whatever they choose to make of them. -- Natalya 04:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

There is an ongoing discussion about the governance of Esperanza here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)