Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/New charter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

ATTENTION: All people are remembered to keep their cool while debating these ideas/proposals.

Wrote a small amount of seed text. Please expand as you see fit. Be sure to trim things down too. Ideally, don't have more than 7-10 items. Kim Bruning 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, some of the current edits make me wonder if esperanza reccomends using wikis at all. These rules would work great for an organisation in some nice quiet room in some old ghost town dating back to the 16th century.

When formulating a way to work, try take some of this modern new-fangled stuff into accont, such as errr well, internet, and wikis. You may have heard of these things?

Okay, well, try to think about how wikis and internet can help bring people together and cooperate, and then try to implement that in the simplest way possible, rather than introduce large amounts of overhead upfront.

It's especially important to keep things simple. Since esperanza is not *that* big, you could even get away with appointing an enlightened dictator, and have it that rules can be edited by anyone in normal wiki-fashion.

Kim Bruning 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proposal

Why not get rid of the council and all other forms of official positions? WikiProjects don't have emperors. Instead, whoever has time and interest puts forward ideas, and if other people like it they go along! -- SCZenz 06:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Already being discussed elsewhere. -- SCZenz 09:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There's been some talk of getting rid of edit count requirements on the talk page of the members list. Anyone object to taking them out of the charter  YDAM TALK 07:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that the edit count requirement violates other parts of the charter. If we want to help Wikipedia, and expand our knowledge of everything in a peaceful enviroment, then why don't we allow all people to come in, I'll get rid of that. WikieZach| talk 11:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning

The reason we need an Assembly is to stop corruption, since it is elected every three months, it must be up to date with the people. WikieZach| talk 11:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an organization on Wikipedia, not the national government of a nation-state; your language just doesn't make any sense for this context. Corruption? The People? What? Consensus works well almost everywhere else on Wikipedia; why do you think increased bureaucracy is the solution here? -- SCZenz 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That also seem to imply that the people are corrupt and elected leaders would be less likely to be so  YDAM TALK 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already run by "the people". In that kind of situation you're already as close to perfect as you're ever going to get in the real world (as far as we've been able to discover to date). If you're already as close to "the people" as you can get, delegating power to extra levels of leadership -no matter how saintly those leaders are- won't ever make the level of corruption or defection any lower, though it can certainly make it higher.

Not all aspects of leadership are bad though. Leaders can also bind people together. A similar role is called a coordinator, which is someone who merely brings together people who they think can cooperate well, but generally can't force things. A coordinator doesn't need much delegated power, though they do have a small amount of intrinsic power.

Due to the lack of delegated power, making someone a coordinator is typically much less of a big deal. Would a coordinator role work well enough for Esperanza? Kim Bruning 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, it might. Or at least, it might work out better, and be less controversial, than a lot of the discussions going on now. Not to say that all of the suggestions are not good ones, but perhaps that would cause a lot of problems to be, well, less problematic. I wonder what other people think. I don't think one person "running" Esperanza would work, but if the person is going to act as more of a cohesive user, perhaps it would. -- Natalya 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Things to Consider

A couple of major things to consider. Fisrtly, there is no mention about serving the community. While I know that we're trying to also focus on our encyclopedia, we can't forget that we're here for the community as well. If our focus on the community goes away this is no longer Esperanza. Second, while I put this link on the Esperanza talk, I'll put it here as well. Finally, I'm not sure we want to be making Esperanza this....confusing, leadership wise. Read Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance. There's a concensus there to keep the goverenence structure as is (though maybe go for a rename) or, failing that, scale the governence back drastically. Adding to it goes against that consensus, and needlessly complicates things. What I would like to see more of is more clearly defined goals on how Esperanza will serve the encyclopedia and the community, but hopefully these will come with the influx from the charter overhaul page. Regards, Thε Halo Θ 11:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucracy - and others

All the bureaucracy is making my head spin. Why bother? Do we actually need anyone running Esperanza? After all, the rest of Wikipedia gets by running things by consensus - why should Esperanza be any different? If we do, can we please make it a little less complicated? Also, why is Esperanza designed to be a "small community"? The wording makes it sound as though size limits are being applied. I also dislike the wording of EA as an "approachable community". This sounds just plain wrong. EA is not a separate community within Wikipedia, it is part of the wider community. The phrasing makes EA sound like a veritable cancer within-Wikipedia - whoops! I'm sure I'll think of one or two more things later, but this'll do for starters. Moreschi 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Natalya for Supreme Dictator. Too many tranches. Deletionist Cabal gets bored, goes to roust out articles on Timecube.

More seriously, I think a problem with the charter is that you should simplify the leadership. Have you considered a single person running each program, and answering to Natalya? (I like the current leader you have because there was not a single undignified or uncivil comment form Natalya during the entire MfD debacle, anywhere , which is awe inspiring.) --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, every Esperanzan insists on comparing Esperanza to WikiProjects as a justification for their existence, but when it is pointed out that WikiProjects run without any kind of leadership or governance (and yes I am aware that MILHIST has co-ordinators, but they established a need for special roles before they created them), suddenly Esperanzans need to be "kept in line" or be guided in some way that no Wikipedian would tolerate outside Esperanza. The main arguments for leadership is that they "make decisions" "perform maintenence" or "act as spokesmen for us". Why are Esperanzans incapable of doing this for themselves? Anywhere else on Wikipedia, if an editor sees a problem they fix it, or they propose an idea to fix it. That same editor then comes to Esperanza and puts themselves under the authority of the Council, who do everything for them. It is ridiculous. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There was quite a long discussion about this here. Some form of Governance on Esperanza isn't a new idea, and has been around since pretty much the very beginning. Over time, we've found this works for us, which is why there is a consensus to keep the Governance the way it is. Any Charter will need to take into account the consensus already reached in discussions elsewhere. Thε Halo Θ 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Forgive the sarcasm, but "works"? In the face of multiple MFDs deleting an awful lot of stuff EA-related, I'm not sure that "works" isn't just a little bit complacent. I largely agree that some form of Governance is necessary, and I prefer Option 2 out of my 2 options. But the last thing needed is yet more bureaucracy, IMO. Let's see with what others say. Moreschi 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
We have seen what others say: Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance! For an arguement of "Esperanza should be run be the consensus of those who use it", we seem to be forgeting that the consensus is no more bureaucracy, no less. Let's keep things the same (although there is on ongoing discussion about naming of the governance structure). And, to be fair, the "multiple MFDs deleting an awful lot of stuff EA-related" were lead be the members of Esperanza, not against them (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza being the odd one out :P) Thε Halo Θ 17:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know neither the Coffee Lounge Games nor the Coffee Lounge itself were nominated for MFD in-house. Anyway, if consensus is to keep the current structure of governance, then so be it, but over-complication is to be avoided at all costs. What I am more interested in is what editors think of my rewriting of the "Mission" section. Best, Moreschi 18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad we can agree that kept the same, or consensus changes and the Governance is scalled back, any more would seriously over complicate things :) As for your Mission section (and I'm sorry if you reply to this and I'm not around, as may be the case a lot tonight), I think that it is a very good overview of the mission of Esperanza; that is to possitivley contribute to both the encyclopedia and the community. The only thing I would say is that one thing that has often come up with the charter is that it needs to be more defined, as well as a mission statement. Thε Halo Θ 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of an Assembly is to stop a councilor's bad behavior. It would act as a balance to check the others. Since it is routinely elected, it is of the people. It would hold only judical powers. WikieZach| talk 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Another way to stop a councilors bad behaviour is to ... not have a councilor :-) We can then also drop having an assembly. This simplifies the design considerably. Kim Bruning 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There will be many disputes in the future. There are many issues for both bodies to deal with, if created. If we have no government, then we Esperanza will collapse. WikieZach| talk 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Have ye so little faith in reasoned discussion and consensus building among interested parties? -- SCZenz 01:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I just believe that we cannot all decide policies, we need leadership. For an example look here. We are talking and debating. We may never finish. That would happen to Esperanza if not for a government of SOME sort. WikieZach| talk 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Case in point. This reform is based on consensus building amoung interested parties. The consensus here was to keep the Governance as is. However, we're not following that consensus. We're having the same conversation, the same consensus building discussion, even after the consensus has been reached. This is why I'm in favour of the AC. They just keep everything ticking along in a much more organized fashion. Thε Halo Θ 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to an AC. I agree with everything, besides that we need some way to check the council in the case it dosen't behave, it may never happen, but if it does we need a way out. WikieZach| talk 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiZach's reply is just *SUCH* an example of Esperanza being completely out of touch to Wikireality. "I just believe that we cannot all decide policies, we need leadership." Never mind that every other policy on Wikipedia was suggested and accepted or rejected by the communities themselves. Never mind that every day people start discussions that lead to new things on Wikipedia. For some reason on Esperanza, doing things the Wikipedian way is wrong, and yet you say you are just as much Wikipedians first and foremost as the rest of us. "For an example look here. We are talking and debating. We may never finish." Then clearly the discussion needs to continue forever, like the endless debate between deletionists and inclusionists, between WP:Straw polls and WP:Voting is evil, between WP:IGNORE and everything else. This is what Wikipedia is built on, discussion and uncertainty. If consensus is not reached either the discussion continues or the people leave the discussion out of boredom. But on Wikipedia, we don't elect a massive council to let them make decisions for us. You keep insisting you need leadership, but as Brian said "You are all individuals, you need to think for yourselves". You keep wanting governance you do not need. The fact that AC exists was criticised from the very beginning of Esperanza seems to have been forgotten by you: people were objecting from the very first day back in 2005 about incessant layers of bureaucracy, yet you see yourself as part of the Wikipedian community? If you truly want to integrate yourselves, get rid of it. I proposed that you drop the council for a period of a few months back on the overhaul dicussion, to see if you really needed the governance you say Esperanza would collapse without, but funnily enough, it was derailed by two Councillors... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Never mind that every other policy on Wikipedia was suggested and accepted or rejected by the communities themselves." - so you want the communities to accept or reject something, uless you disagree with it, like now. "Never mind that every day people start discussions that lead to new things on Wikipedia." - that is exactly what happend with Esperanza. A new system of doing things was judged to be best, and that's the way we did it. "I proposed that you drop the council for a period of a few months back on the overhaul dicussion, to see if you really needed the governance you say Esperanza would collapse without" - and funnily enough, in this overhaul period, when the AC hasn't been calling the consensus, and letting others do it, the consensus here has been forgotten. "but funnily enough, it was derailed by two Councillors..." - are we forgetiing about Shreshth, ShardsofMetal, Jam01, Roninbk, The Giant Puffin, Limetom, Jc37, Quack688, and BadBillTucker? Thε Halo Θ 10:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"you want the communities to accept or reject something, uless you disagree with it, like now" I want Esperanzans to be empowered to take control of their own fates, like they are in every other part of Wikipedia. I have been calculating average ages, and a high percentage of people who are calling for "strong leadership" are under 16. They're seeking surrogate parents to tell them what to do, even if they don't realise it. "A new system of doing things was judged to be best, and that's the way we did it." No, it was imposed on members of Esperanza from the very beginning, which they had no choice about. And I would suggest, if Esperanza has been making decisions totally contrary to general Wikipedian consensus, that maybe Esperanza needs to be reformed... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Esperanzians are empowered to take control of their own fates. The AC simply keeps things going, and makes sure consensus is being followed. " They're seeking surrogate parents to tell them what to do, even if they don't realise it." Hmmmm....whether this be true or not (and I'm not sure anyone who's not a child psychologist can really say), there are also quite a few over 16 who do want to keep it. "No, it was imposed on members of Esperanza from the very beginning, which they had no choice about." The issue of Governance has been discussed many times on Esperanza, and it has always come back with the view that it is the way which we want to go. So, members of Esperanza did have a choice, do have a choice, and will have a choice. I personally like Elaragirl's idea of having an overseer, with people watching sections of Esperanza and reporting to that overseer. It seems like a simplified version of the AC, reminds me more of Esperanza's original goals, and seems to be the best balance for Esperanza. However, I wouldn't try to force this into our charter, as there is no consensus for it...yet. Oh, and "I proposed that you drop the council for a period of a few months back on the overhaul discussion, to see if you really needed the governance you say Esperanza would collapse without, but funnily enough, it was derailed by two Councillors... " seems to me to be rather bad faith (in fact it is just that sort of attitude which is why I'm stepping down from the AC before the next election). During these reforms, serious contributors have ask for help from those outside of Esperanza to try and get Esperanza back on track, in good faith. While we may have disagreed over a lot of things, your comments, and everyone else's, have always been taken into account, and I, personally, have always let you, or tried to let you (let me know if I've failed) let you have your say on all issues, and never has it even been hinted that those who wanted to delete Esperanza are pushing their agenda here. For you to suggest that the AC are just arguing for a certain part of Esperanza to satisfy only themselves is very sad to see. Thε Halo Θ 11:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My version

I've written up a new charter. The basic principle is that EA is neither so big nor so important that it requires massive amounts of bureaucracy: though my own preference is for option 2. I've also rewritten the "Mission" to make it more encyclopaedia-related and considerably more direct and less waffly. Please feel free to edit my revision as you see fit. I particularly would like help with the "Mission" section, which I still think to be deeply unsatisfactory. Moreschi 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Roninbk's Proposal

I've thrown another proposed charter into the ring, ideally as a middle ground between the two previous offerings. It's structurally similar to the current system, but with (hopefully) clearer language, and emphasis on compliance with Wikipedia policy.

I cribbed some of the Mission section's concepts from Quack 688's comments at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Charter. I rewrote the Governance section to clearly state what the Councillor's job is supposed to be, and to a degree, what it is not.

Comments and critiques are highly encouraged. --RoninBKETC 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Quack's proposal

I saw a few proposals get posted here, so I might as well add mine to the list (though I'm not finished with it yet). I'm still working on the "explanatory notes" section - it's based on points made at the governance and charter discussions, but I didn't want to copy-paste half-finished notes just for the sake of it. I definitely need to tidy it up and make it more concise. However, I feel that some sort of "explanatory notes" section is required in the charter, to explain the reasoning behind the main points.

The major things I need to do in the main body of the charter I've posted are to add appropriate Wikipedia links throughout it, add clickable sub-section links (e.g. link mission to the mission explanation notes, and vice versa), and rework this paragraph in governance:

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.

It's copy-pasted from the original charter, but I'm not sure what it means. I understood it as saying that if a council member's missing, or the council isn't unanimous in a vote, the AG can make a unilateral ruling - and I don't like the sound of that, to be honest. I thought any such decision should only be made in the case of a tied vote. I'd like to ask what it's supposed to mean before attempting to change it.

I couldn't have written any of this without constructive feedback - off hand, I'd like to thank Kyoto, Elaragirl, Natalya, The Halo, Badbilltucker, and Roninbk, but I'm sure there's more I've forgotten. Really, I should thank everyone who's posted on these threads and thrown ideas into the pool. Cheers! Quack 688 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued Governance Discussion

I have began yet another discussion about the Governance here. Hopefully, we can find some kind of common ground which will be good for everyone. Thε Halo Θ 14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Thoughts

I've glanced at the proposals; my head is swimming from all of them and their differences. I can't judge individual ones, but here's what I see anyway. I think most of them have the same goals in different words; there was one that had a nice, clear, long goals section; I liked that. The big issue is governance; someone proposed a really complex one with a general assembly...bleh. I don't think we need it so large. I liked the idea of a coordinator, but more than one; perhaps something like three coordinators, to minimize corruption and maximize efficiency? That would hardly qualify for it's own proposal (or maybe it does, if you want me to write it, then by all means I can). Maybe someone wants to throw that into their proposal; I noticed Moreschi's has many options. Bear in mind, of course, that in all likelihood we won't be accepting any of these in their current form; probably a lot of merging and rewriting, etc., will happen, so don't think that these proposals are the final forms. DoomsDay349 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think debating the number of Councillors is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic if there is no discussion on what their job is in the first place. As in my proposal, I think the current structure and methods of election are fine. We just need to illustrate what the Councillor job description is, by spelling it out in the charter. We also need to make sure that the position of Councillor is not a overly empowered one; the position should be of the same weight as a Wikipedia administrator, able to make sure that the Esperanza programs stay focused, but also "No Big Deal". --RoninBKETC 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Results and the Agenda for Friday's IRC meeting

Hello all! Of (sadly) only 21 people taking the poll and some missing some questions, here are the un-edited results:

1. Should the current charter expire eventually?

 YES 52.4% (11 votes)
NO  47.6% (10 votes)

2. How much should be required to scrap the current charter and write a new one?

TWO-THIRDS   47.6% (10 votes)
ALMOST ALL   23.8% (5 votes)
A MAJORITY   23.8% (5 votes)
THREE-FIFTHS 4.8%  (1 vote)

3. Should the above proposal be approved? (Wikizach proposal)

NO  42.1% (8 votes)
YES 36.8% (7 votes)
  ? 21.1% (4 votes)

Kim Bruning Proposal 4. Are you in favor of the above proposal?

 YES 47.4% (9 votes)
 NO  31.6% (6 votes)
 ?   21.1% (4 votes)

Roninbk's Proposal 5. Do you approve of the above stated proposal?

   ?  38.9% (7 votes)
 NO  33.3% (6 votes)
 YES 27.8% (5 votes)

Quack's proposal 6. Do you approve of the above proposal?

  YES 55.6% (10 votes)  
 NO  38.9% (7 votes)
 ?   5.6%  (1 vote)

Becuase of this, the Agenda for the IRC meeting will go one by one for each proposal; from most popular to least. Remember it is from 5:30pm EST until, we are done. WikieZach| talk 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another charter idea

I reread the various suggestions, and I was wondering if there might be room for another idea. I had some part in the development of Quack888's charter, but I find myself leaning towards having little or no governance, with decisions being made by consensus. I propose then having a charter with the stated goals of Quack888's proposal, but having little or no hierarchy as per Dev920, Moreschi, and Elaragirl. My apologies if I have forgotten anybody. --Kyoko 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The only concern I have with the "we'll elect a co-ordinator if we need one" approach is what happens if you face a problem that needs co-ordination. In such a scenario, you'd need to discuss whether there's a need for co-ordination, agree that there is, then have a full election campaign to choose who will co-ordinate it. While all this is going on, the problem is getting worse, since by definition, it needed some sort of co-ordination. It seems more orderly to have elections on standard dates, and choose more than one co-ordinator at that time, to make sure that at least one is available and ready to act if such a problem arises.
In my proposal, the council members aren't leaders - the only real power they have in everyday matters is declaring when consensus has been reached (or not) in disputed cases. I thought that would remove the temptation for someone involved in a debate to summarily say "I won", close the discussion, and have the debate flare up again two seconds later on a new thread. Even if this power gets taken off the council, I still think it's good to have a bunch of "pre-approved co-ordinators" sitting around. Quack 688 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your idea, but wouldn't a simple majority vote suffice instead? --Kyoko 14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel very evil for not having got to this earlier. Hell, if this is the way so that we avoid massive over-bureaucracy, then so be it. Anything's better than that. A couple things though - I quite like Quack's mission+principles, but there are just one or two things that niggle. First, cut the word "hope". It's far to vague and sounds like EA's an association of deranged pseudo-psychiatrists. There's also a fair bit else that sounds impractical, but anything's better than even more bureaucracy. Moreschi 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forgot that in part, Esperanza is about hope. If you get rid of that, then Esperanza is no longer what it was meant to be (and we're already going down that track, so anything that can be preserved should be preserved). -- Natalya 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Cut out hope, and you cut out the name Esperanza. At that point, you may as well just create a new organization --RoninBKETC 10:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Kyoko - What would you suggest if someone calls for an immediate yes/no vote and closes the discussion based on that vote, while a significant minority want to continue the discussion and explore other alternatives beyond yes/no? I like the idea of only seven AC members able to call consensus and close disputed discussions, simply becase it makes each of those people accountable over a period of time. If you get an AC'er who repeatedly cuts short debates they don't like, you can look at their history, and stop them by voting them off the council. If a regular member has the right to do this, and does it repeatedly, what options do you have to stop them?
Moreschi - I left the word "hope" in there more as a nod to history than anything else. It's less prominent than it used to be, though, and it's clear that it's just one of many things Esperanza aims to provide. The "AC powers/responsibilities" section is still up in the air, I might tweak it based on what I read here. Is there anything else in the mission or principles section that seems impractical to you? Quack 688 10:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey for agenda for 2nd Meeting

[1] Please check it out. WikieZach| talk 05:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with these weird off-wiki surveys and IRC meetings that I can't attend? Why can't we just settle this within the scope of the Wiki? You want a poll, use WP:POLL. There's no reason to overly complicate matters --RoninBKETC 10:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Beats an IRC meeting - • The Giant Puffin • 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also agree. From what I can tell, the first IRC meeting did some good, and a few ideas were put out, but I'd rather a poll here (that is, on wikipedia) decide what will happen. Thε Halo Θ 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There should be no members

Esperanza should eliminate the concept of "Esperanzans" to prevent creating the mistaken impression that the project is some kind of club. No one is excluded anyway, so there is no difference between an esperanzan and a wikipedian. Leading people to identify with esperanza instead of the encyclopedia is just going to cause problems. I've outlined this at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Becoming_a_part_of_the_community#There_should_be_no_.22us.22 and I'd like comments there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Wikipedia_talk%7EEsperanza_New_charter_8d56.html"