Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 13 July 2009 (→This is a wiki). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development SlimVirgin 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, and not in IRC or closed mailing lists? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• I never use closed channels either, and this would be no exception. DGG (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages runs. Does that make me a member of a secret cabal? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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. لennavecia 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• None of this should be allowed to be back-channel. rootology (C)(T) 00:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
  • But not participate in. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree too (If I am still around for the long run, that is) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Ditto all the above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Concur. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

1. Seek community approval for the goals and closed membership of ACPD in some form similar to what has been proposed so far.
2. 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)

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)

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)

Verify that personal attacks are inappropriate as a standard

Since both Giano's ad hominem attack on me? and User:Rootology personal attacked me because I voiced an opinion 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. 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)

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

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)

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)

As and when the Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I would much rather people contribute to Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)