| Revision as of 15:20, 13 July 2009 editJoopercoopers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,604 edits →Some possible agenda items← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:23, 13 July 2009 edit undoJoopercoopers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,604 edits →Some possible agenda items: remove comments to talk - Roger, please use this for suggestions in the future - JC asserts independence.Next edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| ====Name change==== | ====Name change==== | ||
| There must be a better name than "Advisory Council on Project Development"! How about "Thinktank", as that signals loudly and clearly that this is a forum for bouncing ideas around. There is a slight problem with this in that an essay exists at ] but that is not insurmountable. So what name? |
There must be a better name than "Advisory Council on Project Development"! How about "Thinktank", as that signals loudly and clearly that this is a forum for bouncing ideas around. There is a slight problem with this in that an essay exists at ] but that is not insurmountable. So what name? | ||
| :Personally, I like the sound of Thinktank. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 13:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Mission and Vision==== | ====Mission and Vision==== | ||
| How about something like:<blockquote>"The group has neither executive authority nor special status nor any powers. Its remit lies exclusively in the realm of ideas: to chuck them about, to chew them, to digest them, to improve them, to develop them. Its focus will be providing considered or imaginative solutions to longstanding problems."</blockquote> Does sound like governance? If so, please tweak it. |
How about something like:<blockquote>"The group has neither executive authority nor special status nor any powers. Its remit lies exclusively in the realm of ideas: to chuck them about, to chew them, to digest them, to improve them, to develop them. Its focus will be providing considered or imaginative solutions to longstanding problems."</blockquote> Does this sound like governance? If so, please tweak it. | ||
| :How about: "Its focus will be to come up with imaginative solutions to longstanding problems identified by Wikipedians, and to propose these solutions to the community for adoption or further discussion." | |||
| :*A noticeboard could be put up where Wikipedians could advise the think tank of issues that they would like them to come up with a solution for. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or they can just post to the forum talk page. ]] 14:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, though requests might easily get buried there among all the other discussions. A noticeboard listing the issues Wikipedians feel need solving might also help increase general awareness of these issues, and get other people involved in thinking about them. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 14:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Membership==== | ====Membership==== | ||
| This is a highly controversial and very knotty problem. If the membership is vetted, accusations will fly of a self-elected group or a cabal. If the membership is elected, it will elevate the group's status to an elite. If membership is wide open, it may grow too large, or too prone to disruption, to achieve anything particularly helpful. How to avoid accusations of partisanship of selection? How to hit the right balance? |
This is a highly controversial and very knotty problem. If the membership is vetted, accusations will fly of a self-elected group or a cabal. If the membership is elected, it will elevate the group's status to an elite. If membership is wide open, it may grow too large, or too prone to disruption, to achieve anything particularly helpful. How to avoid accusations of partisanship of selection? How to hit the right balance? | ||
| :Perhaps: fixed overall number, with a mixed composition. One-half appointed by arbcom, the other half by the community? A bit like Wimbledon: ranked players and wildcards. A good mix with a few oddballs is essential for good brainstorming. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 13:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Thorny problem #1==== | ==== Thorny problem #1==== | ||
| The ] contains the following ]: <blockquote> "The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related ], should carefully review them for adherence to Misplaced Pages policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case."</blockquote> What's the best way of getting these sort of remedies out to the community so that interested editors get to hear of it and perhaps act? |
The ] contains the following ]: <blockquote> "The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related ], should carefully review them for adherence to Misplaced Pages policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case."</blockquote> What's the best way of getting these sort of remedies out to the community so that interested editors get to hear of it and perhaps act? | ||
| :Part of a wider BLP problem. Off the top of my head: (1) Write a Misplaced Pages Review article explaining that the German Misplaced Pages for example was shut down for a day by a German court in 2006, because of a privacy complaint. () Explain potential liability risk to the Foundation. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::What? A WR article? I don't think that's a way to reach out to interested editors on this project. Also, I think we can all agree that the American court system would ''never'' shutdown the English Misplaced Pages for a day over a complaint.<br>Roger, other than the usual noticeboards, I'd say make it an expandable addition to the Scientology Arbitration template found on all of the related article talk pages. ]] 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Initial members === | === Initial members === | ||
Revision as of 15:23, 13 July 2009
 | This idea is in the brainstorming stage. Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas on the talk page. |
Original announcement
Original announcementThe Advisory Council on Project Development is an advisory group convened by the Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales . The Advisory Council acts as an advisory body to the Arbitration Committee and to the community; considers various issues facing the project and develops ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it; and serves as a forum for the sharing of best practices among the different areas within the project.
The Advisory Council is not authorized or intended to interfere with normal community discussion in any way; anything it recommends must achieve consensus normally, as any other proposal would, before it can be implemented. The group can be regarded as a high-level think-tank, coming up with ideas that either the Committee or the community as a whole might choose to pursue.
The Advisory Council also advises the Committee directly, providing it with feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in its work.
Some possible agenda items
(Originally posted by Roger Davies, See Misplaced Pages talk:Advisory Council on Project Development)
Name change
There must be a better name than "Advisory Council on Project Development"! How about "Thinktank", as that signals loudly and clearly that this is a forum for bouncing ideas around. There is a slight problem with this in that an essay exists at WP:THINKTANK but that is not insurmountable. So what name?
Mission and Vision
How about something like:
"The group has neither executive authority nor special status nor any powers. Its remit lies exclusively in the realm of ideas: to chuck them about, to chew them, to digest them, to improve them, to develop them. Its focus will be providing considered or imaginative solutions to longstanding problems."
Does this sound like governance? If so, please tweak it.
Membership
This is a highly controversial and very knotty problem. If the membership is vetted, accusations will fly of a self-elected group or a cabal. If the membership is elected, it will elevate the group's status to an elite. If membership is wide open, it may grow too large, or too prone to disruption, to achieve anything particularly helpful. How to avoid accusations of partisanship of selection? How to hit the right balance?
Thorny problem #1
The Scientology arbitration contains the following remedy:
"The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Misplaced Pages policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case."
What's the best way of getting these sort of remedies out to the community so that interested editors get to hear of it and perhaps act?
Initial members
The Advisory Council is currently comprised of the following editors (and their signatures):
|
Membership is currently by invitation of the Arbitration Committee.
RFC
Discussions
- Advisory Council talk page (for general comments and inquiries about the Advisory Council)
- Advisory Council forum (for discussion among Advisory Council members)
- Advisory Council forum talk page (for outside comments about topics being discussed by the Advisory Council)