Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:15, 12 July 2009

Format of discussion pages

At the moment, the discussion pages are set up as suggested by Giano and several others; we have three separate pages:

• 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 community comments about topics being discussed by the Advisory Council)

Does this seem like a reasonable setup? Would anyone prefer a different one? Does anyone have any other ideas for how we could better organize discussion? Kirill  13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating an agenda

The Arbitration Committee will probably be providing a list of topics that we might discuss fairly soon; but, beyond that, I think we need to put together a broader pool of topics that we can use as an agenda.

I suggest that everyone here comes up with a couple of topics which they would like to see discussed, and we can go from there. Does that seem reasonable?

Should we also post a request that other editors suggest topics (and, if so, where)? Kirill  13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess other editors can post on the talk page and we can take it from there (?) - as far as topics, you just want everyone to list here then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess so, unless someone would prefer a different method of putting together the topic list. Kirill  13:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to put a spanner in the works, but I don't see how members can present a subject until the council's remit has been clearly defined, which at present I don't think it has. There are subject that I would dearly love to debate, but I suspect they are not what this council has been convened for. So let's have a clear remit of what you and Jimbo (under whose auspices we are told the council sits) want from us. Giano (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As things stand, we're free to discuss any topic of our choosing, so long as it has some relevance to the improvement of the project. I don't think you need to worry about our remit for any practical purposes; I'm quite certain it would cover anything you might suggest. Kirill  16:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any remit (that is, transfer of legal authority) is in order since we won't be discussing specific cases. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, "remit" means: The topics, scope and depth that a person, committee, is expected to deal with. Giano (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was using the more specific legal meaning, as I assumed that is what you meant. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What Giano said. At least a definition of the starting 'envisioned' framework would give us an idea of where to begin. rootology (C)(T) 16:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Committee is working on a list of suggested topics as we speak; but it may take some time to put together, and I don't think we need to hold off on discussing anything until we get it, if someone already has some ideas for topics. The intent, broadly speaking, was to explicitly ask about some issues, but let the advisory group choose topics itself beyond that. Kirill  16:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we primarily concerned with what we ought to start doing in the future, or with improving what we do now? DGG (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Both, I think. In practical terms, proposals for incremental changes will probably be easier to develop than ground-up redesigns, but the latter are certainly worth considering as well, even if they require more effort to produce. Kirill  16:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP is the biggest issue facing the project, in my opinion. I'm sure my work cleaning up in this area is why I was invited to join this council, so that's my topic of choice. لennavecia 16:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That would probably be as good a place to start as any. MastCell  16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is to brainstorm, right? Come up with a long list of everything that is broken on the wiki. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Why bother? Everything is wrong, obviously :) Since this is ArbCom's grand idea, I'm mostly interested in its interests and proposed topics; I understand that this all got developed a little sooner than expected, so I'm happy to wait. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To synthesize what I've read so far: people already have some ideas for specific issues to focus on, but some of us think our first order of business is to create something like a mission statement. Why don't we do both? We can get a draft mission statement (or multiple drafts) going, and create a list of issues that we should focus on. As for the how, I think it might be best if for issues, we do things sort of RFC style by proposing topics with a short description, and those willing to work on that topic now or in the future should sign their names below. Thoughts? Steven Walling (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a viable option. لennavecia 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Who we are

I think the first order of business is to define who we are. Since we have no official powers, and no set agenda, it seems to me that we should say that we are just a group of Wikipedians who have been asked to get together, and because of the nature of how this happened, we are a group of Wikipedians who have the attention of many other Wikipedians. That is reason enough for me to start having discussions.

It is hard to have focused discussion these days. So many people start threads and you get so many opinions expressed that nothing ever seems to happen. Maybe, with this small group, we can actually have focused discussions, and better yet, maybe we can figure out ways to encourage more focused discussions throughout the project.

It has become exceedingly difficult to have community discussions about big issues. I'd like to see our group become facilitators for the community. Facilitators do not make decisions, but they help keep things organized and on topic. We can do that by creating concise pages about issues that we feel are important, summarizing the past history of the issue, help define the issue in ways that stimulate creative solutions, listing criteria for possible solutions, brainstorming, stimulating debate on possible solutions, etc...

Currently, if you want to be involved in debate about an issue, the norm seems to be that you are presented with either a poll about a single proposal with hundreds of !votes and opinions, or a RFC where there are numerous essays and !votes. It takes hours for a concerned Wikipedian to get up to speed on the issue. These processes are moribund from the weight of the community's concern. There is currently, no alternative to this, which means that these big issues fester, and people get discouraged and leave. We need an alternative. The issue pages we create could be the way for the interested Wikipedians to get up to speed on an issue quickly, and participate in an efficient and effective way.

Several months ago, I started writing up a process that could be used to help facilitate community consensus. I realized though that there was no mechanism that would help me get the attention of the community to try and implement a process that was so different from that which already exists. We can be that forum. I hope we will become that forum. I'm looking forward to working with all of you. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns regarding scaling issues in general. What's key for me in this is to improve the project's efficiency in decision making, whilst retaining broad democratic input. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting appraisal and idea, I'm not exactly sure how it would work in practice. Let's take an issue, say, FlaggedRevs, where there's been a boatload of discussion and general, if not broad, consensus to movie towards some deployment. How would we approach it? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD function 1:Redact and present community discussion.? As a starting point for anything we discuss here, we'll need to do that if it hasn't been done already.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is where the money is, and I have placed the question again on the RfC page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! If we did nothing besides redacting the community's discussion in a centralized place we'd be making a tremendous contribution. The next step after distilling conversation is keeping discussion focused and on track. This has been one the functions of facilitators in the traditional consensus decision making process. The over arching function of the facilitator is to organize the process of making the decision. Often with community discussions at Misplaced Pages, we have massively big !votes about proposals on topics when there is no consensus about what the problem is that is being solved; when alternative solutions have not been brainstormed or discussed; etc... A good facilitator would never let that happen. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree (nor is there any "authority" that has to devolve from ArbCom to do this, btw). If we could somehow focus discussions on the key issues and organize the discussions, it might even (gasp) encourage more participation in them. Awadewit (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections

We are already taking some considerable flak for the rather arbitrary and unaccountable way we have been selected. I'd like to see us make an early commitment to hold future elections. I think issues surrounding this debate include 1. How to get a good cross section of the community 2. Voting method 3. When. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think elections are a terrible idea. A popularity contest isn't a good measure of who's committed to getting down to work on thinking about these issues. Instead, let's just open up this group or a new one like to completely open membership. Steven Walling (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the formulation of this group, as I understand it, was to provide a space with a high signal-to-noise ratio. Completely open membership does nothing to help that. Elections are also problematic, but the best choice of a bad bunch, can't we discuss how to make them a better choice rather than dismissing them out of hand? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections would only be necessary if we had any actual power,which we do not. As the community is at liberty to disagree with anything we might suggest, if we ever do suggest anything, there is not really anything to fear. I considered this for a while before accepting, because I have always strongly preferred open groups. But a purely advisory group can another matter--and I think of us as not even primarily that, but primarily a discussion group. And I would suggest something else that would help: the group's existence is limited to one year. That will be time enough to see if this is useful to the community. DGG (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Elections seems very premature to me. I'd say that we try and establish a role for such a committee and then earn the community's trust. Once a value for such an organization can be demonstrated, we could consider how members come and go. I really think the signal to noise problem is stifling the project. I don't see any way to get the community to agree on any new process other than to demonstrate how valuable it can be. We should encourage broad community input, but figure out how to do that without weighing down the process. I don't see this committee being about personalities or popularity. I assume that the larger community will also be discussing the issues that we discuss, and we should put the effort into distilling the ideas and concerns that come up. If we can be the filter for the community we fill an important vacuum. So I'd like to put off any discussion about membership until after we've created our identity and demonstrated a process for operating that is effective .-- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading the RfC I think the perception of power is sufficient justification. I like your idea about a one year dissolution though - in the spirit of compromise, how about we maintain as we are for six months, see what we produce, then elect? @Sam - sure, at minimum, I'm just looking for a commitment to accountability --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so if we can't agree on elections and others seems to think that opening the group would create chaos, then why don't we either continue with business as usual regardless of ArbCom or community support, or take it off en.wiki to Meta or elsewhere? To be frank, it's not that I entirely disagree with the objections expressed at the RFC. It's that I want to get shit done. I'm glad this particular gathering of smart Wikipedians is interested in the same, and I want to do what we can as a group to think about the important challenges that Misplaced Pages faces, whiners and critics be damned. So let's think about how we can be productive, and less about how to appease factions who want to run around with torches and pitchforks. Steven Walling (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I agree completely. لennavecia 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think elections will have to come whether the group likes it or not - it is cearly and rightly the will of the people. Having said that, should these elections be open to all? If not to whom? It's my understanding that the point of this body is to have a cross section from the community of experienced editors so a way perhaps needs to be devised to ensure candidates meet that criteria. I also think there need to be a realistic ceiling on the number of members (I like odd numbers because then you don't have stalemate. However, firstly we need to get the thing up and running in an orderly way so that prospective candidates can see what it is they are standing to be elected for. I am quite happy to say that I will stand for election in a years time. Which should see some purpose sorted.Giano (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Giano has a point, but I agree with Steven that we should try and get stuff done before we get muddled into another layer of voting and tallies and crud. If we can't do anything worthwhile, or the amount of energy expended is no less than through normal channels, then we can dissolve it before it turns into an institution. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling we were selected in part, with the method we were, because to be completely honest getting anything new off the ground on this site anymore, beyond the most absolutely trivial, is impossible. Everyone digs in their heels for their 1) personal political reasons; 2) philosophical reasons; 3) the 'new thing' would minimize their 'power', so they dig in to stop it. Since we have no apparent direct power over anything but as individual users, elections are largely going to be ceremonial and a sign-off on our ideas. Or something. But yeah, we will need these eventually. Rather than do anything silly or over the top, we should go about it in the context that Giano described above:

1. "elections will have to come whether the group likes it or not - it is cearly and rightly the will of the people"
2. "a realistic ceiling on the number of members"
3. "we need to get the thing up and running in an orderly way so that prospective candidates can see what it is they are standing to be elected for"

My take on this is #1, absolutely. Appointment should be 101% community-driven only. #2, definitely. If we're going to go through with this and see it through, this project should have as mentioned also a very high signal to noise ratio. Just something to think about, maybe have an expansion of up to 3 users per year, use RFB numbers, 0-3 appointed per year. We can cook up term limits as well if people think that's helpful, but since we don't actually decide anything, like the AC, I don't know what good it would do. Just thoughts on that. #3 is the most important now and aside from idle inner thoughts #1 and #2 don't matter yet, and can be came back to. rootology (C)(T) 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rather verbosley, that is what I was trying to say, the things needs to up and running before elections etc, and also let's see if it's going to work out and serve any useful purpose. Giano (talk)

An RFB like election to be a member of a discussion group? Pass on that. I have enough shit to deal with in my personal life and better things to do than to relive an RFA where I get slighted for every naughty word I ever said, read complete fabrications about my edit history and get compared to one of the site's more notorious editors. The project is broken. As noted above, it's literally impossible to change anything that isn't completely trivial at this point. Some group is always going to find a reason to oppose anything. This is one of the projects major problems. My sole purpose for even being here at this point is to advocate for the living subject of our shameful biographies. I became entirely fed up with the bullshit of this project many months ago and I'm all about discussing these various issues and trying to come up with ways to fix them, but I'll be damned if I'm going to subject myself to a popularity contest in order to present ideas to a community that would just assume shoot them down because they weren't invited to participate or have some ridiculous fear of a thinktank having power. لennavecia 00:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, just tossing it out as what our priorities are in what I saw as the order (and Giano was more succint as always than I ever am). I wouldn't 'run' myself if it was an RFB thing, especially since all we can do is "advise". But you hit the nail on the head of the fundamental flaw of Misplaced Pages: Jimmy's 100% open model doesn't scale for governance no matter how some people like to pretend. rootology (C)(T) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't run, either. I'm interested in the idea-generation part, not the electioneering part. I don't want to have change my behavior on-wiki so that I can court votes. Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I wouldn't run for anything. As the project gets bigger and bigger, I'm enjoying it less and less. That's why I'm here talking. So along those lines, how about making our first topic of discussion Misplaced Pages dysfunction. --☑ SamuelWantman 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

←So let's say there's a general opinion to table the whole issue of elections for the foreseeable future? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's get some work done first, at least on defining scope and the issues at hand. Steven Walling (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd so say. We all have better things to do than campaign for support from the community to discuss problems amongst ourselves and present ideas for improvement to them. لennavecia 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections - motion

I know we've not heard from everyone on this yet, but I put forward the compromise suggested above, so that we might move on with other things. We've got some that think we need elections, others that don't and some that won't stand if we do. If we commit to elections in a year, those that won't stand have a year here to make a difference. For those who might stand, our success or failure will be measured by whether we've had anything adopted by the community.

1) Elections to the council will be held on 1st August 2010. The intent, nature and details of the elections will be decided prior to July 2010.

Support

1. proposed--Joopercoopers (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support This is a fundamental basis of the ACPD, it needs to be 100% established that the community will have the opportunity to select the advisers. However, they must be editors of long standing who have shown a personall commitment to the project and representative of all aspects of the community. Giano (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

I'd also like to suggest we dispense as much as possible with this archaic voting mechanism per Arbcom for absolutely every decision, contested or not. Preferable would be to create project pages we all edit. If there's disagreement on those pages, we then come to the talk page to vote if and when necessary. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain for now, as I don't think it's important to figure out an election scheme if we're not sure it's going to work. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please! no voting. I'd suggest instead a different process. First we discuss, then when it looks like things are coming together someone says "This looks like we are reaching consensus, are there any concerns that have not been addressed". We then discuss the concerns. At some point, someone calls for consensus by saying "I'd like to call for consensus" and we sign below that without comment if we are in agreement. If someone does fully agree they can say "declare reservations", "stand asside" or "block" per normal concensus decision making proceedures. We are a small enough group that we can use standard concensus decision making techniques. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also, we should move s l o w l y ! We should wait a while before trying to decide anything. I think there are members of this council that haven't even been here yet! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there are. It would be nice if this group could operate outside of wikitime to allow everyone time to participate and to think slowly and carefully. Awadewit (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

the view others take of us

It is quite obvious from the RfC that the view others take of us -- and good people too, many of whom I respect enormously -- is different from the way we see it. Based on the discussion above, most of us see our role as trying if the process of a discussion in a moderately small varied group not focused of specific issues produces some ideas that the community might want to consider, or at least clarifies some issues. There is a good deal of suspicion expressed of anything from arb com. Perhaps we can do it best free completely of their sponsorship, and I wonder if the proposal of doing it at meta might make some sense. At this point, considering what has been said, we do absolutely have to work in public. I do not see arb com's role in this as wrong, though clearly they misjudged how to suggest it. When there's a vacuum and action is needed, somebody has to start thing going. I unfortunately wonder if the prejudice against anything they suggest will lead people to discard even their good ideas. My view has always been that we should take good ideas from wherever they're offered. DGG (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately wonder if the prejudice against anything suggest will lead people to discard even their good ideas. I think that's clear. And I absolutely agree with your last sentence. لennavecia 06:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly, I'm not sure if any sort of binding consensus will come out of the RfC, and I fully intend on ignoring it, really. It was hastily put up by people with a bone to pick (not to say some of the people opposed don't have good reasons), and given the division on self-electing groups anyway I'd hardly say there's a mandate to shut it down. We can shed the Arbcom involvement, if we must, but that would be largely symbolic if we're still operating in the same capacity. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)