Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 14 July 2009

WT:ACPD/F

This talk page is intended for outside comments about the topics being discussed by the Advisory Council. General comments and inquires about the council can be made on the main talk page.

Community suggested issues

If you have an issue that you would like to be discussed by the Advisory Council. Please list it below. Write a short description (about a paragraph) that explains the issue and add links to any relevant pages. Please, this is not the place to start discussions about the issues that are listed. Start a new section if you want to start a discussion.

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is anyone/everyone free to comment on the "Forum" page, or is it limited to the members only? — Ched : ? 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the note at the top; it's for the Anointed Ones only. Us plebs are "cordially invited to contribute comments or suggestions on the talk page". – iridescent 18:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anointed? Iridescent, I do not use oil, or any form of lotion, on my hair. Now that I am very important, I would like a little more respect from you please, but I would like you plebs to remember that I am almost like a normal human being and completely unchanged in anyway. Giano (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched - anyone can use this page, I think the idea is ACPD are going to use the project space page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to any of the members individually, but I wonder how long it will take before folks start referring to the ACPD as the "ArbCom Police Department". Hopefully there won't be too many folks following in the footsteps of old Boxer. — Ched : ? 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah - my vote was for the Project Development Group, but I hope we have better things to talk about than a cute name. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can understand the thought behind this idea. I can even envision some very positive things coming from such a group. I think that the membership should be ratified in some fashion though. Perhaps not even anything as formal as an RfX - a simple "20 approval votes" perhaps. If 20, 30, or whatever number of editors say "Hey, Editor X would be a good person to work in this area", then perhaps there wouldn't the backlash that we/you are seeing. I personally wouldn't even object to not having an "oppose" ability. If someone has x-number of people trusting their efforts, then at least there is some sort of "representation" there. Giano has brought up some excellent points in regards to this (elections) on the project page. The other item I have reservations about is a page that's closed to the community. Even ArbCom allows outside contributions in the line of "Comment by" types of things. The "you can edit on the talk page" type of thing just seems to me to be condescending. The members are already talking about setting "an agenda" ... what about the "agenda" that the community would like to see? It's not something that I'm going to sit and stew over, but I think you'll have better success with the community "behind" the operation - rather than a self-appointed end-run to what a select few people think is best for everyone else. Just my opinion, and I do wish you folks the best of luck. — Ched : ? 03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Openness of discussion

Can we get a clear endorsement from the members of this organization that they will discuss everything openly, here, or elsewhere on Wikipedia, and not in IRC or closed mailing lists? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in participating in something that works in secret, and will leave the group if it ever reaches that state. The whole point of the thing is ideas for bettering the project, and doing such work behind closed doors would not just be a violation of trust, it would be stupid. Steven Walling (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The public discussion pages have already been initiated - I too, would not particpate in anything that was secret - I don't think that was ever the intention. Giano (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use IRC or closed mailing lists, and I can't see any reason why I'd want to for the purposes of this group, so yes you have my commitment. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never use closed channels either, and this would be no exception. DGG (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use closed channels either, and believe in full transparency. Absolute full disclosure: In the past I have met Jimmy Wales, Sue Gardner and board members in person several times (mostly at meet-ups), and we've discussed all sorts of things related to how Wikipedia runs. Does that make me a member of a secret cabal? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that it would be counter-productive to have backroom discussions. The whole point is to discuss the issues and present ideas to the community. Leaving open the question of how conclusions were drawn would not help in anyway. Transparency is of the utmost importance here. لenna vecia 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of this should be allowed to be back-channel. rootology (C)(T) 00:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, that was an express point in the emails we all received, and I am fairly sure we are all committed to such a course. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no point in closed mailing lists or IRC - we want a discussion of ideas that everyone can see all sides of. Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But not participate in. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too (If I am still around for the long run, that is) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto all the above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will only participate in this so long as it is on-wiki or in an a medium that is publicly archived.BirgitteSB 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the preconditions for my acceptance of the invitation to join the group. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paths forward

The way I see it, ACPD is basically vacuous at the moment. With no powers and the active resistance of the community, it is little more than a waste of time. In my opinion, there are two basic way to change that.

Seek community approval for the goals and closed membership of ACPD in some form similar to what has been proposed so far.
Create an open forum for project development. I would envision such a forum to be forked from Village Pump (policy) with open participation but a mandate to focus on the development of new policy initiatives (while VPP maintains it's role to help explain and apply existing policies). I would also propose to imbue such a project development forum with a bit more formal structure than exists at VPP. For example, one could adopt uniform polling procedures and other rules to centralize the consideration of new initiatives.

Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an alternative possible path forward... start talking. Propose good ideas. See what happens. If someone else wants to set up a competing talk shop, great. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - as I mentioned above: Put up a page of the editors in the group - allow us to "sign" that we support the editors to function in that role. No questions, no opposes, no discussions ... just a simple show of support for the members. At least that way there is some sort of evidence that there may be some community backing for this. If someone gets 10, 20, or whatever number of ratifications (rather than votes or !votes) - we then know that they are representing a part of the community. It may not be "consensus", or even a true mandate, but at least it shows some "community" involvement. — Ched : ? 16:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmm..hmmmm. yea. "talking" only works when there is someone else that "listens". Nice that we peasants have this little talk page to placate the masses, but it appears that the only way we get the masters attention is if we threaten to piss on the carpet. Ah well, I thought it might be worth watchlisting (for a bit), to see if this new "Cabal" would actually attempt to represent the community, but I see they are much too busy, to be bothered with such trivial tasks. Somehow though, I just can't envision "community support" for a "council" that's too busy to listen to folks it's supposed to be representing. "Back to the mines" comes to mind, but then again ... it's only a website, .... now isn't it? — Ched : ? 14:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verify that personal attacks are inappropriate as a standard

Since both Giano's ad hominem attack on me?[1] and User:Rootology personal attacked me because I voiced an opinion [2] have been condoned, I ask as a basic standard that this "committee" or body not condone personal attacks. This is important, as another member of your "committee", Joopercoopers, refused to respond to my concern, saying that the word "behaving" excused Giano's ad hominem attack that followed, then deleted my enquiry.[3] This is especially worrisome, as I recently underwent an arbitration that was the result of statements and behavior of approximately one third of the members of this new "committee" designated by ArbCom. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the venue for those complaints, plain and simple. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you discuss coming here with this with your mentors first, as I gently suggested? Is this the result of that discussion? If it is then we'll talk.--Joopercoopers (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question is attempt to see if this body will address, or even acknowledge, issues of importance to the community as a whole. I was under the impression this is the type of issue this body is supposed to consider. Recently, a well-known editor ceased editing because she could not come to an agreement with Jimbo Wales over the issue of her language to other editors. Regarding the above, ArbCom has stated that baiting me and other forms of undesirable behavior toward me will be regarded by them as censurable. I made no personal attack myself. Are you going to answer my question? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As and when the Wikipedia:Civility/Poll concludes, yes I think that's an issue that should be looked at in general terms. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Civility policy and the enforcement of it should be a topic we discuss along with the related NPA policy. لenna vecia 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would gratefully appreciate it. This is so important in creating a constructive working atmosphere free of fear. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wiki

This is a wiki, anyone can edit any page with few exceptions. What authority is behind the notice at the top of this project page? Who has the authority to say I can't edit it? --Tango (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could edit it if you'd like, but your edits will probably be reverted. This council was started at the request of the ArbCom and Jimmy Wales. The alternative to doing it here, in Wikipedia space, is for us to have discussions somewhere else, in a less transparent setting. I can't speak for everyone, but I believe we all think that transparency is important. We are just having discussions, and we have no official powers. You can consider this to be an experiment, to see if a select group of experienced editors, committed to discussing issues in a small group can come up with anything of value. It has become nearly impossible to resolve any contentious issue using traditional Wikipedia practices. I can think of alternative mechanisms to make important decisions with total community input, but the inertia to keep the status quo makes it nearly impossible to create meaningful change. Who knows if this council will do anything of value. If we fail, nothing is lost but our time and effort. I'm hoping that we succeed in creating some good ideas and proposals. Nothing will stop you, or anyone else, from creating a different council that was totally community driven, with membership open to all. But how can such a group get formed and gain the acceptance of the larger community? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would much rather people contribute to Wikipedia:Governance review. If the community decides that we want some kind of council we can put it together then. Putting it together now without community support is just harming ArbCom's already poor reputation. --Tango (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor reputation? There are some problems with the ArbCom's charter, but that's not the current members' fault. This current ArbCom crew is probably one of, if not the most effective committees that we've had so far. They're sttempt to take this small step to address governance issues is evidence of that. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made no judgement on their effectiveness, just their reputation. From the talk I've heard, the current ArbCom hasn't been able to entirely do away with the poor reputation the last lot built up for themselves. --Tango (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current Arbcom is probably the most deep thinking of any we have ever had. I would not have accepted the invitation if I thought it was a dirty tricks department. Initially, I was deeply seceptical so quite understand the views that others are taking. However over the last few days, I have found that one can interpretate the founding of the ACPD in a number of ways; my take is that it was a cross between an olive branch to discontented editors (to have some of their own advising the Arbcom) - a reaction to the very recent and vocal discontent that there has been of late of which the Wikipedia:Governance review is part, while at the same time wanting advice on the way forward from a group of experienced editors from all walks and viewpoints of Wikipedia. The varied mix will certainly ensure that the "dicontents" don't get it all their own way. I thik this council is a way forward, perhaps less radical and less democratic than some of us would have liked, but it's a start, it's not a revolution, but it an acknowledgement of problems and it needs a chance. If it fails, and it may, then we are all still here with our views. I rather feel that the Arbcom have acted in good faith and now been wacked in the face with their own olive branch. Perhaps I have it all wrong, I dunno, but that's my view. Giano (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't doubt that it was done in good faith, I think it is just terribly poor judgement. They should have known what the reaction would be. --Tango (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeding with business

As the existence of this council is opposed by a clear majority of the community, I think it's totally inappropriate to simply proceed with business and ignore the community's wishes. It suggests that the council does not respect the community, making its work even more suspect than it was at the outset. Everyking (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's premature. The RfC is in its infancy, as is the Council. Users may get a clearer idea of what it is they are opposing or supporting by seeing the Council in action. Given that the Council has no "power" to do anything, there is nothing to be gained by not progressing. Heck, we may even achieve something, though I doubt we'll get that far before the RfC closes. --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't opposed to what the council does, they are opposed to how it was created. I don't see how further observation will change anything. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making an assumption that the latecomers to the discussion will feel the same way as the earlybirds. You may be correct in that assumption, but it's an assumption nonetheless. --Dweller (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the group is to discuss the problems that face the community. One of those problems is the inability to either change anything or introduce anything. There is always a group wanting to shut down any attempt at change or improvement. No opposition to what we want to do, just opposition in the way we came together. I think everyone would benefit from a little AGF and some time to see what we're able to come up with. Sometimes ends justify the means. لenna vecia 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how Everyking said "clear majority" - this suggests that Wikipedia operates as a democracy. I missed our transition to that form of government. :) This sort of problem for me is the crux of the issue - we say we operate on consensus, but then we make no attempt to ferret out what the real consensus of the RfC is. For example, many of the arguments presented both for and against the council were completely illogical and emotionally overwrought. Unfortunately, none of them are stricken in any way. Everything is counted equally - that is not classic consensus, that is democracy. If we are going to make arguments based on "the majority", we need to set up a systematic way for the democratic process to work. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that members of this committee or council or whatever it is are shrugging off the point made by Everyking is precisely why this is not going to end up working, and I'm truly sorry to say that since I would like something like this to work (personally I'd even be fine with all of you being the ones to start it off—the exact membership is not a big deal to me). Anything you propose, per your charter, needs community consensus in the "normal" fashion. Saying "meh" to 70 "very bad idea" comments in an RfC about the group is about as bad of a reaction as one could possibly have if you want to come back to the community later to get consensus on something, as I would assume you will do. I mean, you could at least pretend that you care about those comments. I am utterly astounded at the way some of those appointed to this are handling the objections (to take a particularly egregious example, it's hard to exaggerate how much a diff like this hurts your cause). Your biggest goal is not to actually come up with some terrific proposals, it's to make sure you can get "the community" behind whatever it is you ultimately propose. Please don't forget that before you even begin. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not shurgging it off - please read more carefully. I am pointing out that his/her reasoning is not what Wikipedia purports to use as a governing model. We do not claim to be a democracy. If we want to be a democracy, we need to found such a structure. We don't have one now. Awadewit (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about democracy. What I'm saying is that this council has no consensus support—in fact, there appears to be a consensus in opposition to it. Everyking (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was "clear majority of the community" - that invokes democratic process. I am pointing out how we conflate consensus and democracy on the encyclopedia. We don't seem to know what we want - do we want to decide via democracy or consensus? I also pointed out how the consensus is not as clear as you make it (once you remove the illogical arguments, etc. as one must do in deciding consensus, which is not a numbers game). Awadewit (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the consensus vs. democracy points to the side because that is a distraction and not germane to what either Everyking or I or are saying, regardless of EK mentioning "a clear majority" and then you seizing on that phrasing in your counterargument. The issue is not about how many people said thing X, so let's forget about quantifying !votes or talking about why that's a bad idea.

The problem I'm pointing out (and you're reinforcing it in my view—sorry but that's just how I see it) is an apparent willingness from some on this council and ArbCom to essentially ignore the strong objections and proceed apace with this business as though a significant, articulate chunk of the community had not thrown up a big, "stop, can we talk about this for a minute" sign. For example, when you refer to "illogical arguments" that alter consensus, I can only assume based on the context (i.e. your point that Everyking's view of the consensus is wrong) that you are referring primarily to oppositional arguments, and that you are essentially saying there are a number of arguments there which you think don't make sense and which you can therefore ignore. Ignoring a number of arguments then enables you to shrug off - I reiterate the phrasing because that's precisely how I read your stance and the stance of several others - the RfC as something which does not really have much bearing on what you are now about to do here. I think that's a huge mistake for reasons already described, particularly since you are in no particular position to judge what opinions do or don't count in this particular RfC. Indeed you are one of the last people who should be claiming to judge (without, so far, mentioning any specifics) what is "illogical" or not, because the arguments in question bear directly on a group of which you are now a member. I'm sorry, but you don't get to say what counts and what doesn't, or at the very least it's bad form to imply that you do. And it does seem to me that that is what you are saying.

Finally, you cannot know this so no worries, but I'll point out a pet peeve of mine. As a rule comments like "please read more carefully" come off, in my mind, as rather condescending. Like you I'm a doctoral student in the humanities and very much a careful reader here or anywhere else. If I come to a different conclusion than you do about some piece of your writing and its meaning (though my previous comment was not actually directed at you personally), it's probably because I'm approaching the text in question differently than you are, not because I failed to carefully read what you wrote. Feel free to say I'm still wrong in my reading of a given point, of course, but the implication that another editor was not really paying attention to what was already written before banging away at the keyboard is not generally helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would like to post an equally thoughtful reply, unfortunately I am leaving town in about 36 hours. Could we pick up this conversation in a few days or at my talk page? I think the issues we are batting back and forth are at the root of the problem. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no problem, and it's probably best to discuss here, so I'll check back or just drop me a note on my talk page when you get a chance to respond. However be forewarned that I might well participate in this in which case conversations like this one, even when constructive, would be verboten for me for a few days starting Friday night. Enjoy your time out of town—I've heard it's a great place to be, though I've never been there myself. :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love that idea. This is a Dramain for me since I'm a content editor most of the time. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

I personally think that having elections to determine the membership would be less than useful, possibly counterproductive. I don't think it will necessarily break his heart at this point if I were to say that Giano, who is probably one of the best voices of opposition (for lack of a better term) to a lot of what goes on here, might have a slightly worse chance of winning an election than Cat Mandu had. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Another idea is a mixed composition -- partly elected, partly "wildcards" appointed by arbcom. --JN466 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or like this. 12 elected to 1 year terms, term limits of 1 year; every 3 months the 12 appoint 4 that constantly rotate in and out for fresh eyes; the 3 monthers have limits of 2 cycles. The entire initial batch of users steps off 6 months to the day after membership values are sorted out and/or the elections complete, whichever comes later. rootology (C)(T) 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think rotating positions would be helpful to the cycle of discussion in the long term, though the initial group stepping down after a set period could be good. Steven Walling (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That would be the strength of this, I think. You get the core elected group, chosen because they clearly know what they're doing in the community's overall best interest, or for a given group--the writers, the RC guys, whomever--and they bring in specific people for special projects. Need a couple of BAG guys next quarter for something big bot related? Pull in X! and someone like that for 3-6 months. Need someone Commons? Pull in a couple Commons admins. Or whatever combo. That would be the strength of it--or if someone proposes a brilliant kernel of an idea, that isn't part of some other group, pull him in to see if it has legs. rootology (C)(T) 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with elections is that you will only get people who willing to put themselves through an election. If you are then saving the appointed seats for special problems, well that limits the pool.BirgitteSB 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the trick in the end, with this. If no one runs or is willing to run, and many people don't want a group appointed by the AC machine, then the group will eventually fade away, if that's meant to be it's ultimate fate. We could well see dozens of people throwing their hats in, or none. We won't know till we get there, but people will not be happy until this is totally turned away from the AC. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Peter Damian proposed group - you have a series of community nominations, and then a general election...Modernist (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People will be happy when it yields something useful. Competence excuses nearly everything.BirgitteSB 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Birgitte, which is why we shouldn't mess around with elections or any foolish business until it works. The whole point was to avoid unnecessary hoops and cut to the chase; if this actually manages to be a force for good, as it were, then I'm entirely for opening it up. But I'd rather wait for results; institutional momentum being what it is, it's a better plan, I feel. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and just to be clear I am not opposing opening it up. But I don't think it is wise to draft the exact method of opening it up until we we have a better handle of where it will be useful. This sort of focused discussion cannot cure all the problems of Wikipedia, but it is more likely to useful to certain types of problems than others. If we can get some idea of what kinds of topics this most useful, then it will be easier to draft an effective permanent procedure.BirgitteSB 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for a small group, representing a very varied constituency, it is necessary to be extremely clever in order to have the people optimally selected--or even adequately selected. I think we're varied enough--with perhaps the one common feature, that we like to express our ideas right out there--and that would seem an indispensable requirement. I do not think an elected committee would be likely to be broad enough unless it was at least twice the present size, and that would be too large for good discussion. But the community rightly wants a direct voice, which is critical; there are also some people who think they should be here instead or in addition to us, and some of them may be right. And there are also some opponents of the current plan who would make wonderful members. In any case, I am very uncomfortable being in a position where what I'm doing does not have the confidence of so many people whose views I rely on. DGG (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever confidence you have lost by accepting the position can hardly be redeemed by resigning now (if that is what you are contemplating). At least by standing firm you prove your disagreement to be a sincerely held difference of opinion rather than a whim. Their confidence will best be restored when worthwhile things developed here prove their doubts mistaken.BirgitteSB 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"DevCom" ("Development Committee") proposal

User:Roux has made an interesting proposal on how the transition from the present body to something perceived as being more separate from arbcom could be handled: Development Committee. Please take the time to have a look at it; I think it includes some worthwhile ideas. JN466 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the way forward is pretty clear - reform the committee with all new people and no arbs. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC's generally run for at least a month. I'm sure a lot of great ideas like Roux' will be forthcoming during that time. In the meantime, this council will be working on what they've been asked to do. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Councilman, whatever you say. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple proposal for the Advisory Council members

A longer rant of mine along these lines can be read elsewhere, but this is the quick and dirty version so you don't have to bother reading that.

A lot of people don't like this, obviously, and want to hit "pause" and talk some stuff out. Many of you, and some Arbs, want to press on ahead for right now. How about a bit of a compromise? What if the ACPD members hold off on "doing anything" (including discussion) for a set period of time—maybe 10 days or two weeks (something not too long is the point). During that time we'll have a community discussion about tweaking or overhauling this group. If we come to some agreement(s) about how to do that, we'll run with them. If the discussion goes nowhere and/or is just a disastrous mess, you folks pick up right where you left off, knowing you engaged directly with the community but that said engagement did not produce any workable results, so you're back to plan A. I think that could be a way forward, and I don't think you lose much of anything by holding off on your discussion for a little while, whereas you gain a lot from giving the community at least a chance to shape this group a bit from the inception.

Thoughts on this from Advisory Council and/or ArbCom members would be very much appreciated. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a word? No. How does us continuing our discussion as a group impede in any way a RFC? It doesn't. In fact, for people to see how our work is developing is something that informs the commentary, rather than interferes with it. Steven Walling (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's obviously fine if that's your view, and thanks for replying, but just to be clear I'm not talking about the RfC per say. My concern is definitely not that this discussion impedes the RfC—as you say it doesn't (and I did not suggest that it did). I guess what I'm imagining would be a separate, start from scratch discussion (maybe clerked in a formal fashion), something in which you all (or many of you) would participate—i.e. you would direct your energies to a discussion with community members for a little while rather than to one among yourselves just yet. The idea would be to meet the concerns of a number of other editors at least part way by engaging with them first, and if that just did not yield concrete results you come right back here and pick up where you left off, no real harm done (I think). Finally with respect to Steven's last sentence, and as should be obvious from the RfC, the big concerns are with how the committee was constituted, how members were selected, etc. etc. As such many folks are not going to change their view simply because the see you are starting to have a fruitful discussion in this forum.

I'd still be interested in hearing comments on this idea from other ACPD people or Arbs. Even if this specific suggestion is not something to which people are amenable, I'm curious if there is any openness to the possibility of allowing the community some direct input into this right now before the process gets too far down the line. Obviously the lack of said input is the main concern for many right now, and maybe there are some workable ways to address that issue so there's a bit more of a unified front with this going forward. If that's possible I think it's obviously worth pursuing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in stopping discussion. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. What harm comes from us discussing issues? I can see nothing but potential benefit. At worst, a waste of our time.
That applies both to this request and the controversy in general. Consider that my official stance of the broader issue and all the little ones that branch from it. Lara 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, given the extent of community unease, many council members still seem eager to get down to business. Surely you realize that the community will not take your proposals seriously because you are operating in opposition to the community's wishes? Are you still eager to do the work because you realize that the ArbCom will nevertheless be willing to consider your proposals, and because you would be content to see reform take place at the ArbCom's direction rather than the community's direction?

In any case, I support this proposal to halt the council's work for at least an interim period while everyone assesses the situation and considers the best way forward. Everyking (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I cannot believe the community will fail to take any useful proposals seriously simply because of their origin. Nor do I believe that what is being done here is in any way in opposition to the community. Certainly there is unease about the whole situation, but the best way to remedy this is to replace what people may have been imagining might be done here with with concrete examples of our approach. Sitting tight and leaving everything to hypotheticals will not help the situation at all. I do not expect to present any proposals to Arbcom at all for their consideration. BirgitteSB 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the council does manage to come up with useful ideas, those ideas may be tarnished through their association with this council. I personally would feel compelled to oppose any proposal that was presented by this council, even if I might support it according to its merits as an idea, on the grounds that the council has no legitimacy to function in light of its rejection by the community and accepting its proposals would mean accepting the ArbCom's attempts to direct project development. While some of its proponents are casting this council as the project's only hope for reform, I think scrapping this council would actually facilitate reform, because it would then be possible for the editors who support reform to get on the same page and work within a common process.

If the ArbCom believes (as I do) that a council would be a useful mechanism for developing proposals on project governance, why doesn't it simply disband this deeply unpopular council and instead encourage the community to elect a council that would develop reform proposals? Why does it fail to listen to the multitude of voices saying that project development must be directed by the community, through a community-elected body? I can only suppose it is because the ArbCom wants to control the process and expand its own authority. Everyking (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the insistent behavior of Rootology and Casliber on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development bodes ill for the future of this project. The best strategy would be to lay low and let the community have their say, not force it down our throats by trying to control the RFC against precedent. Will this happen to the Advisory Council's ideas/suggestions also? It is worrying. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the insistent behavior of people who have consistently gotten "pwned" by the Arbitration committee (which I may add, includes me--go read the MONGO RFAR #1 for textbook screwing of a user here)--shouldn't be taken into account? You, Everyking, and Slim and her friends Jossi, Jay, et al (sorry all, especially Slim & Jay, but this is beyond absurd now and someone has to say something) have gotten screwed by the AC in various forms and are livid about this proposal. The only one missing to show up is Shoemaker's, no offense to him either. rootology (C)(T) 23:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you seriously and honestly saying that if I laid out a given formula and initially proposed it on this page via this system--even if it was an idea that would usher in a ten-year Golden Era for Wikipedia--you would permanently reject it because I suggested it via this system? And that the idea would be dead on arrival from that moment forward, and you could never back it's implementation? Are you seriously saying that? If so, this place has gone even more insane than I ever imagined possible, or people really and truly are against this entire operation simply because of their noted (but which can't be discussed!) biases and previous issues with the AC and this site's leadership. rootology (C)(T) 23:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not trust this group because of the recent arbitration brought against me. I am very uncomfortable regarding the membership of this group consequently. I did learn from the arbitration that intemperant and insistent behavior, such as you are engaging in, is considered disruptive. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No different than your own insistent behavior and broad strokes paint brushing of me and others in the group as some toadies of the AC part of a scheme to "get you". You are equally as disruptive by your own made up standard. rootology (C)(T) 23:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution you that your language and attitude appear to be becoming intemperate. There is no reason for you to accuse Mattisse of being "disruptive", and indeed the the same charge might reasonably be laid at your door. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no caution for Matisse, for consistently discarding AGF for days on end now by accusing us all of being shills, toadies, and hitmen for the AC in some grand ludicrous scheme to 'get her'? AGF has it's limits, and Mattisse accusing others of being disruptive considering her riotous actions here takes the cake. She's been nastily needling everyone involved for days on end. rootology (C)(T) 23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wouldn't oppose it as an idea, or consider the idea permanently tainted—I'd oppose it as an advisory council proposal, as long as it was presented in that form. I tried to make that distinction clear. However, I am concerned that other people could associate certain good ideas with this unpopular council and thus develop a lasting bias against them. Everyking (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would we truly want to do anything to encourage such utter cluelessness, as that sort of behavior? A lasting bias because of who presented it? It all goes back to politics there, and your answer is as clear an answer as is possible of why separating aggressively, by any means, politics and personalities from the encyclopedia is so crucial. It's almost amazing how quickly this entire affair has torn down the made up walls of discretion that people use to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing. I think it's time we forced the blind eyes to stay firmly open. rootology (C)(T) 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 ::::::::I would caution you that your language and attitude appear to be becoming intemperate. There is no reason for you to accuse Mattisse of being "disruptive", and indeed the the same charge might reasonably be laid at your door. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::::And no caution for Matisse, for consistently discarding AGF for days on end now by accusing us all of being shills, toadies, and hitmen for the AC in some grand ludicrous scheme to 'get her'? AGF has it's limits, and Mattisse accusing others of being disruptive considering her riotous actions here takes the cake. She's been nastily needling everyone involved for days on end. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 ::::::Of course I wouldn't oppose it as an ''idea'', or consider the idea permanently tainted&mdash;I'd oppose it as an advisory council proposal, as long as it was presented in that form. I tried to make that distinction clear. However, I am concerned that other people could associate certain good ideas with this unpopular council and thus develop a lasting bias against them. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 23:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)