Re: [Foundation-l] "officials"

--- Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anthere-
> > I would be happy that we begin thinking of how we
> > could "give" these "official titles" to
> participants,
> > so that they can fully help according to their
> > abilities and wilingness.
> 
> Yes, that makes sense wherever there is a need for
> official contacts; in  
> particular, every wiki should have a content
> partnership coordinator and a  
> press contact. I'm not sure if we can legally
> transfer the position of  
> treasurer like that, but it would be a shame if Mav
> couldn't continue his  
> great work in that area.

Nod, absolutely. Mav should do it, and this is
precisely one of the example. Mav could directly have
this trusted position (I mean, he already has it right
? :-))

This said, I was not necessarily thinking of a "head",
ie, of *one* partnership coordinator or *one* press
contact. Just on fr, where we are far less numerous,
we were two press contact for the press release.
I would prefer a flat structure as much as possible.
The coordination just happens rather naturally on each
wiki; through discussion. It is the wiki way. People
interested in a topic just naturally gather and work
together.

I do not think that putting officially the
responsability in the hand of *one* person
specifically is the best option. It is not empowering
people. Rather, people will tend to rely on the *head*
to do things. 

The idea is not to make someone the "chief" on a
matter. The idea is to make it possible for some
trusted users to talk to other people *external* to
the project, and have these external people know
*these* participants are trusted to discuss such
matters.

Also, I am not sure this should necessarily be
language specific. Some topics should not be language
specific, when that engage the entirety of the
project.

Let me give you an example. I don't know if that is
realistic, but that is for the *example*.
If Jimbo is away (are not available or whatever),
Brion could be officially trusted to purchase any
piece necessary to fix a server problem, or even buy a
server itself. He could have the "right" and "ability"
to spent money to do so. Or it could be Shaihulud. Or
whomever. We would know that Brion would have taken
the best solution, after discussion with others, and
he could "act". It does not mean he is the boss, it
means the community trusts him for such a move and
wants the "outside" to know this, and be able to check
this.

Would you call that delegation ?


> We should also decide which of these positions are
> going to be elected,  
> and which ones are appointed. Coordination of the
> representatives from the  
> different wikis could be handled here on
> foundation-l.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik

Well, the idea is not to fall into bureaucracy, ie in
some intensive voting. Some events just happen
naturally. Look, a long time ago (was it perhaps a
year ago now ?), Mav wrote on meta that he wanted to
be the treasurer. I think there was no opposition, or
rather support. Jimbo was fine with this as well. So,
Mav just naturally took care of these matters.
Similarly, when we had the first two press releases,
Yann and I said we were interested to take care of
this; and so it was. Perhaps the idea is not to run an
official election to vote who between Anthere or Yann
should be the "head" of this from now on and
coordinate all of it. We should let people do what
they feel like doing, and when they feel like doing
it.
It may be that some positions require a bit more of
structuring, but I fear you may not have understood
what I proposed.

Let me be very specific.

Say I wish to contact a big charitable association,
and perhaps try to make a partnership with them. I may
be the most appropriate person to do this because
1) I know them 
2) they do things in a field I know, so I can talk
with them
3) I am interested in doing so

Now, say I contact them, and we proceed on negociation
for perhaps a donation from them, and perhaps they
want to be sure the donation is used for a specific
reason (ie, perhaps not to pay server or a german
wikireader, but they want to give money to send some
paper versions of Wikipedia in french, english and
arab somewhere in africa). This is not language
related. This is specific  request and involves
several branches of the project. 

In my proposition, I contact them, I deal with them,
and when they ask if I have the right to negociate
this, and make some promises about how the money will
be used, I answer yes. And the deal is done.

In your proposition, I go see the coordinator of
partnership of french, spanish and english wikipedia.
I negociate with them to convince them to contact the
organisation. I explain them what is interesting to
negociate. I let them try to make a deal, that perhaps
do not interest them specifically. As for myself, I go
back editing a couple of articles, and wait for things
to proceed. Chance is, the deal is not done, and next
time, I do not go and ask the "coordinator". I just do
not do anything. Because I have felt it was not my
job, I become passive.

So, what I propose is not to name people to become
responsible of things in the name of others, but to
give opportunity to people to act themselves, rather
than to wait for a coordinator to do what they could
have done themselves.  


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover