Misplaced Pages

The programs were deleted for a reason. More importantly, they were deleted by Esperanzans. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the coffee lounge, and the coffee lounge games, there was a discussion about setting them up on wikia, which I'm not sure is part of the foundation. However, bringing Esperanza in the state it was in before we began the reform to any other foundation site (wikiquote, for example), would be a big mistake. Barnstar brigade and UPA were deleted because they no longer served Misplaced Pages in a possitive way, therefore they didn't serve Epseranza in a possitive way either. It's important to keep in mind that Esperanza is just a part of Misplaced Pages, not the other way round. Regards, Thε Halo 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Per The Halo (hey, don't I always?). The words "gaming the system" rise to mind. The point is that large chunks of those programs weren't helping and may even have been harming the encyclopaedia - so yes, they should stay gone! Moreschi 16:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not like the programs were speedied in a MfD. They were deleted because they were obselete and/or not needed anymore. They were deleted by Esperanzians. Theres no point in restoring stuff that just got deleted by our own members for good reasons. I think we should focus on making what we have left worthwhile, and maybe making new programmes that are truly useful to the whole of Misplaced Pages, not just Esperanza members - • The Giant Puffin • 21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Governance

Hello Everyone. There has been many discussions about Esperanza's governance in verious places. While it seems like a consensus has been reached in a couple of places, the problem is that nothing has been centralised, and so people may have missed the oppotunity to comment. With this in mind I would like to begin a discussion here as to find some kind of answer to the very difficult question. So far some people have felt very strongly that the current governance system should be kept, some have felt just as strongly that it should go all together. It's important to keep in mind that this is not a vote (voting is, after all, evil), or a straw poll, or anything like that. Just a group of people trying to reach a consensus were everyone is happy :)

On a personal note, I would like to see Elaragirl's idea of governance adopted into Esperanza. Not only do it have a good structure, address all the issues the current governance do, and lower the Bureaucray, it is also a very nice middle ground between the two schools of thought. Without any further ado, Elaragirl:

More seriously, I think a problem with the charter is that you should simplify the leadership. Have you considered a single person running each program, and answering to Natalya? (I like the current leader you have because there was not a single undignified or uncivil comment form Natalya during the entire MfD debacle, anywhere , which is awe inspiring.) --Elaragirl 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that an overseer aided by a set of clerks would work very well for this organization. Of course, this is just my POV, and I'm looking forward to hear what everyone else thinks. Thε Halo 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - my preferred option as well. Anyone else. IMO seeing as running Esperanza is really NOT a big deal, it should be done in the simplest way that is reasonably possible. Moreschi 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The more this debate goes on, the more these two statements stick in my head:

• Key power: Declare that consensus has been reached on an Esperanzan discussion, and act on that consensus

• Key responsibility: Make a commitment to be personally responsible and accountable for the welfare of the group during their term in office

Let's say there's a critical task Esperanza needs to carry out. If it doesn't get carried out for whatever reason, and there's no AC, the blame game will start. However, if there is an AC, the finger of blame can be pointed squarely at them.

Re: consensus: The fewer people that have the power to declare consensus, the more likely it is that a debate will play out to a logical conclusion. If there's a choice between having a debate run too long versus having a debate cut short, I'd prefer having the debate run over-time. This will reduce the chances of the debate showing up on a new thread 2 seconds later. Giving such power to one person is too impractical - what happens if they're tied up with real life? - With seven, there will usually be a good "response time".

I believe that limiting the number of people who can declare consensus also acts as another "check and balance" on the system. With only seven people who can do this, each person will eventually declare consensus on a significant number of discussions, and form a pattern of behaviour which can be publicly examined. This will allow members to "audit" any AC member they wish. If the AC member is really acting like a dictator, they will repeatedly close discussions they disagree with before they reach a community accepted level of consensus. Such closed discussions can be used as evidence in the "raving loon" procedure mentioned below. If, on the other hand, AC members are declaring consensus responsibly, and respecting such consensus, then all is well in the world. I'll quickly address some points from the last thread:

"I don't object to an AC. I agree with everything, besides that we need some way to check the council in the case it dosen't behave, it may never happen, but if it does we need a way out."

Instead of bringing in more layers of government to monitor all the other layers, I'd prefer something like this:

Problem: AC member turns into raving loon / fascist dictator.

Solution: start a discussion, propose a motion of "no confidence" in said member. Provide evidence of raving lunacy. If consensus is reached, kick out that member and replace with the first runner up. If AC doesn't accept the consensus, proceed to the next step.

Problem: Entire AC turns into mob of raving loons / fascist dictators.

Solution: start a discussion, propose a motion of "no confidence" in entire AC. Provide evidence of raving lunacy. If consensus is reached, kick out all AC members and replace with the next seven runners up.

In these cases, consensus isn't declared by the AC, since it's obviously a conflict of interest. Overwhelming consensus would be needed to carry such a motion through - but if the AC member really has gone off the deep end, this shouldn't be a problem. However, someone who starts a new proposal every week to wipe out the council could be considered disruptive, in the same way as someone who puts an article up for deletion five times in a row.

"Anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, if an editor sees a problem they fix it, or they propose an idea to fix it. That same editor then comes to Esperanza and puts themselves under the authority of the Council, who do everything for them."

&

"I want Esperanzans to be empowered to take control of their own fates, like they are in every other part of Misplaced Pages."

It's not the AC's job to do everything. It's their job to ensure that everything gets done. Also, Esperanza could easily run without an AC. That's not the point. The point is that it runs more efficiently with an AC than without one.

"If there is a clear, established need for a co-ordinator, one may be appointed in an election style process for a perod of six months."

Saying "we won't choose one until we need one" seems short-sighted. By this logic, the only time a co-ordinator would be considered is when the project is in serious trouble. By the time it is decided that the project is, in fact, in serious trouble, and by the time a full and fair election is run, the project will have slid into even more trouble. Isn't it better to appoint co-ordinators from the start, to ensure that the project never reaches such a troubled state in the first place? And if by some good fortune we never need such co-ordination, then what was lost by having a team of pre-approved co-ordinators on standby?

"Have you considered a single person running each program, and answering to Natalya?"

&

"I think that an overseer aided by a set of clerks would work very well for this organization."

I like the idea, but just one problem - how are the clerks chosen? If the overseer chooses the clerks, the overseer is open to be accused of bias, or choosing their mates. As well as the "all power with one person" issue people have previously complained about. If the clerks are elected, then the system hasn't really changed. (We could rename the AC to Oversight Committee, Co-ordinators Assembly, or whatever, but I'd like to worry about what they do and how they're chosen before dealing with the name issue. Though I do like the sound of Oversight Committee - it implies that the group doesn't dictate orders, and only steps in when necessary.)

We could implement something like this overseer/clerk proposal using the current elected structure if we accepted the idea of delegation. The AC is basically a group of seven people who've put their hand up to be available for work, and who the community's approved. However, I don't see a requirement for the council members to have to do all the work personally - if someone wants to run a certain program, let them have a go, council member or not! The council can then take a step back and take up an oversight role over the delegated work. If the AC members agree to split up and each take responsibility for a section, that's fine too.

Phew, I'm tired after all that. How about we bring in a new rule that after this reform, governance never gets changed again? Let's call it the "couldn't be stuffed" rule. Tempting, no? :-) Quack 688 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of all governance, and your problem goes away. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a dumb question I asked on some other page, but anyway, what do the members of the AC do exactly? How do the duties of each AC member differ from one another, and from Wikipedians in general? I'm not trying to criticise the organisation, but this was never explained to me when I first joined Esperanza. All I saw was the chart listing who was in what position and for what duration of time. I think an explanation of the current hierarchy would help everyone to understand what is going on. Thanks, --Kyoko 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dumb question, don't worry. The question has been asked a lot, and though and answers are all over the place, Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance, especially the higher up parts of the discussion, go over this. If that's too broad of a direction, just say so, and something more detailed can be defined here. -- Natalya 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice

On a related note, I will be steppin down from the AC before the next election (if there is one). I didn't take this decision lightly, nor did I enjoy doing it, but I believe it is for the best for not only myself, but more importantly Esperanza. I’m sure there is someone better for the job of leading this new esperanza than me, and I wish them the best of luck if/when they take up the job. Thanks to everyone who supported me, and I appologise to anyone I let down during my time on the council. Thε Halo 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that you have been one of my favorite Esperanzians, and therefore Wikipedians. You have never let me down. I support you in this decision, and I hope it relieves any stress you might have.--Chili 17:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of heavy-duty discussions taking place regarding Esperanza recently, but you've spoken with reason and civility at all times, even when provoked - I don't know how anyone could say you let them down in this regard. It's been a pleasure to discuss these issues with you, and I'd love to keep hearing your thoughts, whichever way this goes. Of course, stepping down from the AC is your decision, so I'll just say I support it and send you best wishes for the future. Quack 688 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Chili, it means so much to hear you say that, I can't thank you enough. Seeing as I might, at the latest, be staying on until the december elections, I doubt I'll dodge the stress of this though (oh well :)

Quack, thank you for your kind words. I will, of course, continue to contribute to these discussions, and I hope I can continue to work towards some kind of solution with great people like yourself :)

Thε Halo 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Halo, there is no one (in my opinion) that is better for the job than you., because you a such an awesome person. But, if it does feel better for you, then go for it. You're one of those Esperanzians (if not the best ;) that make Esperanza a brighter and smarter place to be. Ditto to Chili, you are one of my fave Wikipedians too! ^_^ Adios, amigo. Kyo cat 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I do try.--Chili 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Halo, you are one of the Wikipedians I have met who displays a constant audacity to express his/her opinions and ideas. You have been a great leader, always making the decisions seeming best for Esperanza. I am sorry to see you submit your resignation from the AC, but I do hope you stick around here.--Ed 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Kyo and Ed. You're support means so much, I really can't put it into words. It is awesome to know that you feel that way, and I'm very greatful. Hearing such kind words from such great people is always overwellming :) Thε Halo 10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

LIVE IRC CHARTER DEBATE

There are many proposal to change the charter floating around Esperanza right now. Let's talk about all of them in an Esperanza IRC charter "debate". I believe a good time would be exactly one week from today. In US Eastern Time, 5:30pm, next week, on Friday. What do ya'll think? WikieZach| talk 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. And for those ordinary mortals who don't have IRC? Moreschi 22:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of free IRC clients. There's even one built in to Mozilla Firefox. Canadian-Bacon 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I use Internet Explorer, which sucks becuse I have no way to get to IRC. I have never been on it in my life.--Chili 22:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The following are two sites from a game I play that helped me get IRC. Just ignore step 5. Remember, once clicking "connect to server", type in #wikipedia-esperanza. The following are two sites, the second is the source, the actual downloading site: ; WikieZach| talk 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will most likely not be able to attend (if it does happen, that is). I will try, though. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 06:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bouncing ideas off each other on IRC is a great idea, but since not all of Esperanzians will be able to be there, anything that gets agreed upon should be brought back here or to one of the other IRC talk pages, so that all can decide on it. Hope it goes well! -- Natalya 14:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe this should be the first of many. I have provided sites to download it, for free above. Yes, we will post any things we agree on. WikieZach| talk 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Does everyone have to attend? I can't, regrettably. Kyo cat 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The whole point is that on wikipedia, responses are slow, on IRC it goes much faster, more like a conversation. If you can't come, then maybe you can come to another one (we are bound to do more than one). In the case you can't make it to any, we will post our resolutions here to discuss further. WikieZach| talk 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Kyo cat 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure to post a summary of what was discussed for those who can't participate, OK? Thanks. --Kyoko 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. WikieZach| talk 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about thos of us for whom 5;30pm Eastern Time is some ungodly hour in the early morning, and we work the next day... Philc _TC 13:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We can always move the time around. This is not the permanet time. WikieZach| talk 14:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Editors' Forum

The Editor's Forum has been designed on User:Ed/Sandbox. Should it become an EA program now?--Ed 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. You should attempt to establish consensus before the Coffee Lounge can become an Esperanza program. In addition, given how unpopular the Coffee Longue was, you will probably be asked to explain the differences between the Editor Forum and Coffee Lounge. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so that everyone knows, the proposal for this is on the proposal page, where there are currently 6 support votes, and not a single object. If anybody opposes this, or has any ideas to improve it, please voice your opinion on the proposals page and/or User:Ed/Sandbox. As it is, it appears that we have a consensus. Also, the differences are pointed out on both pages.  Shardsofmetal  20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Charter Survey

I have made a survey. Please participate in it, but be prepared; it is VERY long. WikieZach| talk 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I took it already. I've been watching the Charter discussions so much that I just quickly took the survey!--Ed 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I took it. Wasn't very long in my opinion. On one question I just took a guess; I'm still learning about Esperanza's charter. Heh heh, sorry. That survey was written pretty well. Kyo cat 06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't finish it, but I get the general idea... I think...--SUIT 06:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go back (on the same computer) I think you can finish the ones you forgot to or couldn't do. WikieZach| talk 14:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the survey, it wasnt that long but was well written - • The Giant Puffin • 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry to those whose proposals I had to cut (it limits the amount of words I can write) WikieZach| talk 14:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the survey. I hope my feedback is useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Editcount

Certain Esperanzans may experience a drop in the number of edits. This is not a bug; it is because of the recent deletion of some pages during the overhaul. I myself have lost some 1000 edits :'-( --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Never thought about that - wierd! -- Natalya 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about users like me, who only have about 1000 edits!? Does everyone know about this? WikieZach| talk 14:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone does. I’ve myself been worrying about it for a few days after the coffee lounge and the userpage awards were deleted, before I actually got around to check my editcount. I was expecting a drop somewhere in the range of 300 edits, but ended up losing 1000. *waah* :’-( --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

O yeah, I never thought of that! - • The Giant Puffin • 14:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Checked it, seems normal. Thanks for the notice! WikieZach| talk 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes...I noticed. Ah well, it's good I think, because this way I don't have to answer to all my WikiPlomacy and Coffee Lounge edits... DoomsDay349 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That would explain why my edits for November surpassed my October edits just two weeks in. And why I still haven't reached 3000. Oh well, back to work. -SaturnYoshi 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup...Kyo cat 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, guys, get over the editcountitis. Hey, if you really want to mess up your editcounts, do some Newpage patrol:) Moreschi 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My edit count does not seem to have been affected. Perhaps this is an indication to increase my participation in Esperanza? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I'll need to start participating more actively - I don't care if those edits are deleted in the end. –- kungming·2 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)