I find it very hard to manage the site, financially, socially, and security-wise by myself. It drains my emotions, bank account, time, and energy. Originally, Cliff and I shared power equally. He had control over the servers and the code, and I ran the community. I did not have the server or admin password. Over time I have become a total GodKing and it sucks. As a result, I no longer trust my own decisions since I do not have to test them with someone else before enacting them.
I'd like to change the executive leadership of Meatball so it is made of at least 3 people on a board of directors. I'm making an open call for suggestions on how to nominate, elect, and organize this committee. The very real problem is what constitutes the CommunityMembership who will elect this committee, so suggestions on that front are welcome.
I recognize that while for the most part the site hums along by itself, the serious executive questions like when to exile someone should be imbued with a FairProcess that is held accountable through elections. Moreover, I'd like others to feel equal ownership over the site as I do, and for Meatball to not be directly associated with me.
Thoughts? -- SunirShah
I'm going to set an arbitrary deadline to have a board in place by October 15. That means we should open voting by October 1. -- SunirShah
Things to decide by then:
I invited the UseModWiki community to participate, since we are responsible for hosting them. -- SunirShah
I've been looking forward to something like this. I've been adding patches to UseMod:WikiPatches and UseMod:WikiBugs for some time now. I would really like to see a UseMod 1.1 that includes just some minimal code cleanup and improvements that have accumulated so far. -- UseMod:UngarPeter
This section summarizes what seems to be the consensus by SilentAgreement. If it isn't, don't be silent!
Anyone with a homepage in place before this page was created (Aug 25, 2006) are the initial voting pool that constitute TheCollective. The voting pool can invite new folks into TheCollective through some as yet to be defined formal process.
Prime responsibilities:
Are there any specific roles among the board members?
Is there a difference between a board and a committee?
How long would the terms be?
Suggestions on how to nominate, elect, and organize this committee.
What constitutes CommunityMembership? Some possible definitions:
Nominated | By | Accept? | Position desired |
ChristopheDucamp | JS | (Yes, preconditions) | french mb HoneyBee |
HelmutLeitner | JS CD | (Yes, preconditions) | German mb evangelist |
ChrisPurcell | JS CD | Yes, but dependent on career | Tekkie |
SunirShah | CD JS | Yes | Chair |
MarkDilley | CD | Yes | - |
StephenGilbert | HL | Considering | ? |
Sorry for my delayed response but I was (1) on a vacation and (2) this OpenProxy checking makes editing almost impossible for me. I think MeatballBoard is a good idea, we have a somewhat similar system on GründerWiki. As a long-term regular of mb it's almost inevitable for me to also accept a formal role. But I have three preconditions that I hope can be met. First is that mb must get a decent backup system or - maybe better - a mirror, I'm pretty shocked that there was none. Second, board membership should be pretty open and there should be a formal process to enter the board (brainstorming: e. g. at GründerWiki any board member can suggest and veto new board members within a one-week timeframe of consensus or SilentAgreement, I'd basically suggest to routinely consider to invite all active BarnStar holders) and anyone can take a TimeOut? from board work (basically decision making). As there never is much work (decisions), there would be no need from Christophe to hesitate to join. Third, I think that this OpenProxy thing is a PITA which should be either improved to become unnoticable, turned off or side-stepped by using some codeword (I can not afford to spend another 1-3 min on each single edit, others will feel the same). -- HelmutLeitner
I thought more about opening the board to be more than 3 members. I think it would not be the Board, but TheCollective, and that is a more valuable thing than the board. I think inviting all BarnStar holders is a good start, but I'd prefer not to make BarnStars formal in any dimension, so then make TheCollective both InviteOnly? but with the presumption that invitations would be freely flowing. TheCollective can decide things like whom to exile and which projects to support with our resources through a formal process. However, I still think (a la FairSoftware) there should be at any one time someone whose primary responsibility is to represent and organize the techies, someone to represent and invest time in building the community, and someone to active look externally for resources to grow the community. These three people should constitute the executive. The executive's primary task is keeping the trains running on time and the site viable, as well as ensuring the wishes of TheCollective are carried out (i.e. setting up a backup system, collecting money). There are real Getting Shit Done tasks at the high level that require a small team. -- SunirShah
TheCollective is a good technical term but mightn't work as well for outside relations. I think that the big challenge of the next years (2007-2010 perhaps) will be to actually initiate real world projects and collaborations between online communities and real world organisations. So formal things like "role titles", unimportant as they seem, may be important to get understanding and acceptance in the world of corporations and institutions. E. g. making contact to initiate cooperation with universities or publishing companies, it may make a big difference whether you enter dialogue as a "member of ..." or whatever. I can only imagine what might work in English, but I know that in German a simple member/Mitglied will not do the job. We have little experience in this, but in German I'd currently suggest to rename members/Mitglieder as a "delegates/Delegierte" who are actually representing the community and are peers in a consensual decision process (which actually means very, very much) and who could flexibly be endowed with role titles like "delegate for publishing collaborations" or "delegate for content quality" without that they have to take much obligations in terms of work or time. I think we can only get people to engage more intensly when they can be sure that they keep autonomous control about what they are willing and expected to work. I think that Christophe hesitates because he doesn't want to take an additional work obligation, while I think that being part of the core team shouldn't mean that you have to work beyond what people actually do or want to do. The only exception may be decision making but in this case the formal TimeOut? should help. -- HelmutLeitner
Just to be clear, since it may be relevant to this discussion, I don't believe voting is always evil. Most people don't understand voting, which is why it is often used badly, and often as a tool of demogogues. It can be useful in two circumstances:
I do not believe in referenda on issues, as no one ever votes for anything. It's better to expend energy creating more natural options than forcing (scalarizing) a single decision amongst bad choices. I'm also personally very very dubious about the merit of voting out people, especially to vote to CommunityExile someone, as that will lead to LynchMobs. Or the converse, when a troublemaker calls for a referendum on whether the community wants him to stay. The effect is everyone has to declare explicitly how strong their relationship is to the person, which is always fraught with falsehoods, both positive and negative, and it is hurtful as some things are better not known. I'd rather see a FairProcess of reconciliation or determination that was rational. -- SunirShah (copied to VotingIsEvil)
I want to throw this idea into the mix... ConsensusPolling, or BeyondYes, work that TedErnst and BrandonCsSanders are doing. I am pretty intrigued by it and will invite them here to explain it. Here are some examples: [the wiki], [ICANNwiki], [icann wiki again] and I proposed it at WikiMania? to a board member and then AngelaBeesley was introduced to it at WikiSym [Wikimedia]. Food for thought. Best, MarkDilley
I concur. As I wrote above (how confusing this page has got), why not just "anyone with a homepage in place before this page was created (Aug 25)" unless that policy causes real problems? That way, there's no voting-elite to cause problems later. Building societies work this way, too. I certainly would feel silly excluding Stephen from the category of CommunityMember. -- ChrisPurcell
I've been thinking what constitutes a Getting "Stuff" Done task which would require a small executive team to make decisions. Judging from past history:
Feel free to disagree with or add to any of these points because concentrating power is antithetical to the MeatballMission. -- SunirShah
Helmut, that was a useful summary to help me clarify my thinking. As a CommunityMember and also as the GodKing at the moment who is entrusted with enacting whatever we decide here, I think what I most want are a small group of people that can reliably make fast decisions on behalf of the community, and are then accountable to the community after the fact. I also want to know if anybody else wants to help with the long list of critical todo items. Selfishly speaking, I'd really like to do some actual writing instead of spending all my time in the boiler room. -- SunirShah
I don't believe it is enough to motivate a group to complain work isn't being done, because I believe most folks are SelfishVolunteers. That's why I like your idea of a more open board. I think the MeatballMission should be extended to providing substantial support (e.g. resources) to anyone who wants to start a new community-driven CollaborativeHypertext? initiative, and then the server would become a GlobalResource. At that point, people would be motivated to preserve GlobalResources. -- SunirShah
See also MeatballToDo for ideas about TheCollective's priorities.
To bring in: