Wikipedia talk:Development committee

• /Archive 1

Just do it

People get caught up in proposing things and hoping for their cards to play out right. People need to stop worrying about discussing things and just do it. Mistakes can be reverted if necessary. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment totally. The fastest way to just do <long-term discussion facilitation for complex ideas> is get down to it -- not even to wait long enough to choose an elaborate committee membership system. Since the point of such a 'think tank' is to address specific ideas and work on them, please help organize and list ideas that are not being properly served by WP:CENT. I like Sam's idea of focusing on facilitation, as a non-rival way to teach any interested Wikipedian how to make others' discussions more effective. But contributing ideas and specific issues to pages such as WP:Areas for Reform is the first step, and doesn't require an elected body.

I would certainly rather see a list of topics and ideas developed on this talk page -- something that could be reused anywhere else that brainstorming happens -- than a list of names and votes and proposed selection models. +sj+ 08:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this show on the road

Since the DevCom's existence does not change anything — it is just another deliberative body which exists to deliver advice with no teeth behind it — I fail to see why we can't get started right away. While I personally do not see the point of a sanctioned think tank with no actionable authority, I still believe that this isn't something that should yield to pointless discussion. Let us do things, and evaluate how it goes along the way. First step: picking the people. This does not have to be that difficult. If you're interested in being a member of this here DevCom, state your name below and why. —harej (talk) (cool!) 08:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the sections above on appointments? I think we should steady on a bit and get some kind of community support for this idea so that we're more than a little cabal. Ironholds (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The best way to prove your point is to demonstrate it in action. —harej (talk) (cool!) 08:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would but I'm at work - I'll move it a bit forward this evening. It is Roux's brainchild, so I'd rather like his input. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I am assuming, of course, Roux has this page on his watchlist. Therefore, in due time, he or she will be able to act upon the experiment which was tagged as a proposal. —harej (talk) (cool!) 08:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You realise, by the way, that the DevCom mandate cries out for official recognition? Our initial makeup is the people from the old, failed ArbCom policy board. We have an arbcom clerk/member written in. We're expected to have a back-and-forth going with the committee. How can we just say "right, the development committee just exists AND THATS IT" taking that into account? It kind of blows your "first step: chosing the people" suggestion out of the water as well, although I don't agree that the old Advisory Council members should automatically have a place. Ironholds (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, recognition is not going to come immediately. But you cannot offer a suggestion and say that you will have to be taken for your word until the idea is approved before anyone can even see how it actually works. Every new idea has to prove itself before the masses can recognize its legitimacy. —harej (talk) (cool!) 09:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to be taking in the key point here. Initial membership is members of the failed Advisory Committee. They're the members. None of them are involved in this Committee. Clearly we have a slight problem making any decisions to "prove ourselves" to people outside this discussion because the people who can make the decisions are outside the discussion. Ironholds (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we should get them involved in the discussion for the committee for which they would be the inaugural members? I am sorry for continually not getting the point. —harej (talk) (cool!) 09:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

After being approached, we can maybe expect another period of discussion and storming involving them before anything gets done? Esowteric+Talk 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for being a bit testy. Works for me, although I don't see why they should be the initial members when general consensus was not just that the Advisory Committee was improperly set up but also that some of the names were not people one would like to guide the community's development. I'd rather start a discussion - should they be the initial members? I think not, for reasons given above. Ironholds (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's just my opinion, but I think the best way forward for a brainstorming think tank is to have a multi-disciplinary team (and the general population is just that), rather than a team dominated by career administrators, lawyers and politicians. Also, we don't want DevCom to stall or fizzle out simply because old faces (for whom we're waiting) decide to ignore us in the hope that we'll go away. At the same time, let's not be too hasty to get the show on the road. Esowteric+Talk 09:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed - see the above discussion on makeup. It looks like we're going to have some seats reserved for non-administrators, and that the committee will be picked using a lottery system from submissions over a certain level. For example: 40 people apply. 35 of those get more than five people seconding their nomination, so they go into the listing. A lottery system picks 20 of those completely randomly. Six months later the cycle goes around again, with committee members "blacklisted" for one term, allowing a completely different makeup for the next one. Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• To clarify my reversion of harej's change to the 'experimental' tag: the only way a group like this can actually work is to have a mandate derived from the community. One of the major objections to the ArbCom advisory council--which purpose this is intended to fulfill, absent the concerns raised by ArbCom's creation of the council--was that it lacked such a community mandate. To simply move ahead and make it happen as a fait accompli would, I think, ignore the concerns of those users who were worried about that. I can certainly see an argument for simply setting this up and going, but I think it is much more important to have community buy-in from the get-go. → ROUX ₪ 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That I understand. Were it not for the requirement that everyone must be on board with this beforehand, the experimental tag would be more appropriate. What I hope to achieve is reframing the debate from "can we allow this to exist" from "how should we let it exist". This way, we can start to put things together, but not make it a full-blown establishment until there is widespread support for it. —harej (talk) (cool!) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • In many ways I really do agree with you, and I will admit to a serious temptation to do as you suggest. I could see my way clear to proposing such an implementation as a test, notifying VPP, AN, and probably the ArbCom noticeboard, and waiting a week to see what the consensus is. Some rewording of the selection process is required, and something noting that it's proposed that this be implemented on an experimental basis for one year (to allow for some changeover in who ends up on the committee). → ROUX ₪ 00:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Well I say why not! The only way this proposal can garner any kind of support is if people can see exactly what it does. Once the membership system is hammered out — even a temporary one for the sake of trying out the proposal — a trial system should be going as soon as possible. This is a wiki, we should really act like it more often. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, see below for proposal. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Committee membership

The one thing that is strongly keeping us from trying out this proposal is the necessity for a membership structure. For the sake of trying out the committee to see if it works in practice and not just paper, we should have some kind of system set up as soon as possible. This does not have to be permanent system; it can be scrapped as soon as a better one is found. I just don't want to see this proposal to be shelved just because we got hung up over comma placement; learn from experience and mistakes, not from hypothetical situations devised in various people's heads. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, we ec'd. See below. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Membership proposal

If we are going to move forward with this as an experiment, I suggest we amend the membership in the following ways:

1. Remove the bit about the ACPD members being the initial makeup of the group. Invite them to put themselves up, of course.
2. Hammer out term length. I suggest that be relatively unchanged; 1 year terms with elections every six months to provide overlap and continuity.
3. Hammer out selection process. I suggest:
   • any named account who has been onwiki since before 1 July 2009 may selfnom
   • there should be standard questions for them to be asked; users may ask further questions, and candidates must provide a statement as to why they should be involved
   • a straight vote on yes/no (see the current CU/OS elections for the format that seems to involve the least DRAHMAHZ)
   • the top 30 people supported (net supports, I think?) will be entered into a lottery (process TBD, perhaps Cary or Godwin could facilitate that part), of which 20 will be selected, of which half will serve 12 months and half six, also randomly determined
4. Initial mandate will be to examine the concerns raised at Areas for Reform and propose solutions to at least two concerns raised there
5. ArbCom will need to ratify the 20 selected in terms of sockpuppetry that would affect suggestions about policy and other nonpublic data; should they veto anyone's election, Cary (for example, or Godwin) would need to confirm onwiki that there is data indicating that socking is ongoing or a recent problem, and therefore the candidate is not fit. It might make more sense for this to occur during the nomination phase.

We will also need some sort of buy-in from ArbCom inasmuch as one ArbCom member or clerk will need to sit on the committee in a Speaker role.

This will then need to be announced at VPP, AN, ArbCom Noticeboard, and on CENT. I suggest nominations open for two weeks, statements and questions for one week, voting for one week, all to be completed no later than 15 Sept 2009.

Thoughts? Anything I've missed? → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things. First of all, I don't think there is a need to involve people who have Official Capacities to be involved in the process. Also, what's the point of taking the upper 30 and having it reduced down to 20 via lottery instead of taking the top 20 and ditching the lottery format? The rest is good as it is. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Given ArbCom's role as interpreter of policy in extreme cases, it makes sense to have one person from that orbit involved; mostly their job is facilitation. As for the lottery, see Rd232's comment above. → ROUX ₪ 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant that Foundation staff (Cary Bass and Mike Godwin) should not have to get involved. ArbCom involvement is fine and should be expected. The point of lottery as Rd232 pointed out is to not have to bother with elections, but the proposal you outlined involves elections. —harej (talk) (cool!) 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I suggested them for purposes of impartiality; they're basically above reproach or the usual rhubarbrhubarbrhubarb by the usual suspects making accusations of shadowy cabals. The election/lottery idea ensures everyone involved has some community support (necessary for trust), while ensuring that any campaigning/canvassing is not as likely to be very successful, as well as avoiding the inevitable concerns about power concentration and too many hats. Remember there is nothing stopping everybody from commenting on what DevCom has to say, just that certain pages will be reserved for DevCom discussion only, with the talkpage open to everyone--again, allowing for focused discussion. → ROUX ₪ 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good format to me. By "1 year terms with elections every six months" do you mean that the committee will be divided into two groups, with staggered one year terms? And if so, how does that affect the first elected committee - are a random half going to serve a six month term instead to get things running? Ironholds (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and yes, see the final bullet under point 3. → ROUX ₪ 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I could live with that, but I'd rather leave elections out of it altogether, except perhaps for the position of Speaker. Sortition from everyone who puts themselves forward (with eligibility criteria something like accounts that had 1000 edits on 1 July, and isn't banned) would be fine for mee, given that the whole thing is just a way to chew through ideas in a more focussed way. Rd232 ^talk 07:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The committee is meant to be made up of people who form a microcosm of the community, and some of those people are invariably going to be less popular than others. I think introducing the lottery ensures a more accurate representation of the community. I 'support roux's final election draft in its entirety, and unless there are any major objections I'll reword it and stick it on the proposal itself in a tick. Ironholds (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, Roux's proposal is primarily election with a bit of lottery on top. I'm not sure this is the best approach; it doesn't "smell" right. I'd rather have, say, 50% straight election and 50% straight lottery - it's just logically clearer. Beyond that, though, maybe we should be thinking more about what sort of people we want on the committee in designing the selection mechanism. I think we want some Old And Wise Editors (who've been around forever and know lots about how and why policy developed as it did), some active admins (who know about using policy, hopefully), some more experienced users who aren't admins (say 5000+ edits, or whatever), and less experienced (<5000, but more than 1000). So we could have four lots of sortition from those different groups, say, each providing 25% of the committee. Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one problem with sortition not mentioned yet is practical - how would we do it? Unless we institute a WP software mechanism, we need a trusted neutral party to do it, no? Rd232 ^talk 09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeedy. We could always get the Speaker-type arbcom figure to do it, if they're meant to be a neutral party. In regards to the election process, I'd rather set a base minimum figure (say, 3,000 edits) than have a massive, overly complex system where one can run for one of four types of seat. If the committee is meant to represent the community in tiny tiny form then your suggestion doesn't really work, because the community isn't 25% admins, 25% noobs, 25% failed admin-types and 25% Wiki-OAPs. Ironholds (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not terribly bothered about the committee representing the community in some kind of perfect statistical way. Ensuring representation from different parts of the community, plus the right kind of experience, is the thing I think. Rd232 ^talk 10:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. rather than that sort of complex split we could just say 7 have to be non-admins, 3 have to be between 5,000 and 2,000 edits or something and that's that. Get rid of the lottery, and pick the 10 admins with the most votes, the 7 non-admins with the most votes, etc. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's really not that complex a split. The most complex part of it is the Seniors group, because that needs defining and possibly voting/endorsing; so we could drop that (though possibly admins with 5-yr+tenure might just do as a criterion). Sortition should also be easier and less time-consuming than voting, once the procedure is set up (and I'm thinking a dev could fairly easily run a little program based on editcounts and admin status, and users can put themselves forward using a Wikipedia: Category.) Rd232 ^talk 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the "seniors" group dropped completely, to be honest. To see how policy developed, fair enough, but major things like the MOS and Notability guidelines only really developed in the last three years - by that standard, even I would be considered a "senior". I think many people who apply and stand a significant chance of getting the votes will fulfill that sort of standard. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for fancy membership groups. As long as the applicants meet certain qualifications, they should qualify for the lottery. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that we should have some minimum number of edits, but not as high as 5000+, as we might inadvertently end up with a committee with too many "institutionalized" members ;) Esowteric+Talk 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well OK let's drop the Seniors group idea (I guess the committee can always ask for input from them if they want). How about 50% sortition among admin candidates, and 50% among non-admins with X edits? X should be between 1000 and 5000 I think; maybe 2000. Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. "Wait till Roux gets back" is an appropriate response though, methinks. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would strenuously object to any sort of criteria beyond "by the time appointees are announced, has been onwiki for 90 days." Anything beyond that invites objection and the usual squabbling over whether it should be 3000 edits or 2500 edits or or or or. Let's keep it simple: anyone can selfnom, the top 7 non-admins and the top 23 others (whoever they may be) get entered into the lottery. The community will decide for itself what qualifications are needed. → ROUX ₪ 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"by the time appointees are announced, has been onwiki for 90 days", the lottery, the community deciding ... would be good enough for me and hopefully would make the process here more expedient. Esowteric+Talk 20:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I seem to be finding myself agreeing with everybody here :). Something most people seem to be fine with, then, even if it is a small most:

1. The committee consists of 13 non-admins and 7 admins
2. Committee members are selected through a two-part process: prospective members run for a direct election, and the 30 people with the most votes are entered into a "lottery" to pick 20.
3. The only requirement to run is that a user must have had a registered account for 90 days or more.

   As a short draft, how does that work. Ironholds (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm not convinced. For this purpose I just don't like the popularity contest aspect of having an election. The whole point of sortition (like citizens' jury) is that you define a qualified population and then choose at random. There are good reasons to break that a little by having admin, experienced non-admin, and new editor populations - so sample randomly from each.

Alternative proposal.

1. Committee has 20 members, of which no more than 5 can have <1000 edits at time of nomination and no more than 10 and no less than 7 can be admins.
2. Candidates need endorsement by 10 editors in good standing, defined as sth like 90 days and 100 edits; candidates may not endorse others but voters can endorse as many or as few as they like.
3. Randomly pick from the candidates, following proportion rules (eg making sure only 5 have <1000 edits by rejecting the 6th drawing of a <1000 edit candidate, if that happens).

Rd232 ^talk 12:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that people will then squabble over the qualifications. Look at the continual difficulty of setting an actual bar at RFA--nobody can or will agree on any numbers. So, again, let the community decide via the Q&A process what it feels qualifications should be. I understand where you're coming from, but defining multiple qualifications is just an invitation to arguments over comma placement.→ ROUX ₪ 13:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not married to any specific qualifications here; the ones I put are just indicative. But qualifications are unavoidable - in elections the voters need qualifications too; the only difference here is that the voting is used to qualify candidates for the sortition. Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't even need qualifications for the candidates; if people largely agree someone is not qualified, then said person won't get enough endorsements. This principle has been demonstrated repeatedly at RFA. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist article

Just seen this After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust? in New Scientist. Esowteric+Talk 11:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mm. Wikipedia:Areas for Reform has been discussing that very issue, and so should DevCom. Liaising with the strategy review thing would be a really good idea too. → ROUX ₪ 15:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The show is (almost) on the road. Need some help..

I've amended the main page per the various discussions above. A couple things yet to do:

• Develop the template for the elections (if we're going to get them going in 11 days we need to move fast), including standard questions as at RfA. I suggest:
  • In your opinion, what is the number one issue facing Wikipedia today?
  • Beyond that, what problem areas would you like to focus on?
  • Have you ever participated in policy development or proposals on Wikipedia?
• Get a listing on CENT
• List on VPP, AN, ACN, ACPD--anywhere else? And could someone more eloquent than I write it? Needs to briefly describe what this is and why it was created, and invite all editors to nominate themselves and/or vote for the nominess
• Anything else?

→ ROUX ₪ 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we going straight for an election or seeking community support first? Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been convinced by harej's arguments. Engagement (or lack of same) in the process will show us how much community support there is; we are creating this for people to use. And I guess it goes without saying, but I'll say anyway: if any of us want to be involved we stand for election just like anybody else. This thing flies on its own. → ROUX ₪ 16:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would never question the second point - none of us should be any "higher" in the process than others. I'll start drafting the election template immediately, and with wrangling/cross-checking etc I should have something concrete by 8pm GMT at most. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. And that wasn't so much aimed at you as forestalling some of the inevitable naysayers. I think we should also indicate in the notice being put out that this is not a referendum on whether this thing should exist; as all Wikipedians have the right to, we have simply created a WikiProject by another name that happens to have limited but community-selected membership. I think we should also post the same notice on the tpages of everyone who was invited to participate on the ACPD, and everyone participating at Areas for Reform. → ROUX ₪ 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So the idea is to hold this election as an election not as a way to gauge community approval, but to use the level of engagement as a sign of whether or not to directly ask for community approval at a later date? Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly.. more like: if nobody engages in this, obviously there's no community support. → ROUX ₪ 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And if people do, then.. we seek direct ArbCom involvment and that is that? And, quick query while I'm designing the template - is it a straight vote or an RfA style !vote? Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, if ArbCom/clerks don't put anyone up, we randomly select one person to act as facilitator/speaker. I'd say straight vote, see the CheckUser elections ongoing now for what I'm thinking. → ROUX ₪ 16:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I was thinking of using that as a format example. I'm beavering away now and should have an example up in userspace in aboot half an hour if you're willing to wait. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It just struck me how similar this is to the idea of a Royal Commission - I'll probably work that in as an accessible example as well. Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Outdent: now up at User:Ironholds/t, sorry for the delay. Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's gone quiet, guys. Any news? Cheers, Esowteric+Talk 09:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with delays is that every time someone new pops in here to join the discussion, we keep going through a repeat of the storming process and the goal of actually getting the work done keeps slipping further away. Esowteric+Talk 18:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

aims? role? basic processes?

The policy page is mostly about the electoral process. Since two things—bloat and diffuseness—are the enemy of wiki initiatives, I wonder whether the basic objectives, roles and processes should be written down. The total lack of a centre of gravity (at least the bare bones of a constitution and role) is what killed ArbCom's Council, apart from the issue of its constitutional validity in the first place. (Of course, since DevCom is a community-driven process without "teeth", it has no such problem.)

I just don't want to see the whole thing turn to masses of text-jelly after all the trouble of setting it up. It sounds very un-wiki, I know, but at least some rules, objectives, procedures, would help it to kick off with a trajectory. It's unrealistic to expect 21 very different editors to band together cohesively to establish this; they may well change it, but the blank sheet at the start will be a killer. Tony (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Anything to suggest? We've got objectives (things listed at Areas of Reform are a starting thing) - for rules and procedures it's striking a balance between too much and too little that is a problem. Too little and you've got nothing to start with, as you say; too much and the process of setting this up gets bogged down with page-long discussions over whether point 1 of section 3, taking into account clause five listed under the minutes from the last meeting, should include a comma or a full stop. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points, both. Give me a couple hours, I'll have a draft up for you to shred. → ROUX ₪ 20:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to call it "constructive mullering" :p. Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me think. Even the broadest roles and functions, spelled out, might be an anchor with which to start. These are vague, off the cuff thoughts in note form that I don't expect you necessarily to take on:

Aims and roles:

1. To assist the project by providing advice on and developing ideas for the improvement or reform of governance, administration, policies, guidelines, and article content—whether (a) by referral from ArbCom in relation to a case or motion before that body; (b) by application from any user or group of users in the WP community; or (c) at the initiation of DevCom itself.
2. To consider community input at a stage and in a manner decided by DevCom as most appropriate for the development of such ideas and advice.

Please edit, hack at it, add, or dismiss. It's only a start. You might also need to say what DevCom does not do, unless you want people bringing ANI complaints here and doubling up with content disputes here and the related behavioural dispute at ArbCom (I'd let ArbCom allocate such content issues) ... plus much more that would clog up the works. My advice is to keep it lean, clean, focused, and interesting for the members.

In terms of internal workings, I think it might be good to spell out the election by DevCom of a Coordinating Member (ArbCom has one) from its ranks, and perhaps to describe a formal but simple process by which one or more members can list topics for debate on DevCom. Anything but a vague talk-fest! (A Coordinating Member could act as the go-between with ArbCom and other bodies.) I know people have an aversion to instruction bloat and bureaucracy, but in my experience, some detailed rules can have the effect of streamlining the actual workings of a body such as this. Perhaps questions for debate should be explicitly framed as questions, with a brief introduction (< 300 words, if possible), and occur on a subpage when accepted as worth the Committee's attention and of sufficiently high priority. I think, also, that "calling for a vote" on whether to change the status of a debate (from "active" to "resolved" or "unresolved as of [date]" or "develop as RfC" might be voted on. Not too many debates at once would be good, so there needs to be enough support on DevCom to bring a proposed debate to an active status, so that it is a slight achievement to have a matter considered by DevCom (I know it sounds cruel, but the alternative is ... loss of interest and status). Like ArbCom, perhaps require that members either be active or officially list themselves as inactive for a period (lack of participation is the enemy of this kind of process, and there needs to be a feeling of corporate identity from knowing who of the 21 members – rather a lot, IMO – should be participating).

I'd also express in writing the kind of skill-base that is desirable in users who stand for election. That would at least give questioners a solid base on which to probe. Skill and elections don't usually mix, and this problem needs to be managed.

Just my thoughts. Tony (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We could always have smaller groups focusing entirely on one debate at a time - that way it gives the committee a decent workload, but also allows them to get stuff done speedily since they're focusing on one thing and one thing only. maybe groups of five? That would allow us four proposals to get going at once. Coordinating Member election: candidates put themselves up on whatever mailing list or similar is set up, straight vote. Seems simple enough. Ironholds (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cabal?

I've posted above before (and don't think I'm not assuming good faith) but the discussion above sounds like people here are more interested in forming a cabal rather than addressing any perceived problems with WP.

You are suggesting to have a "Development committee", something official sounding, to hold elections (also very official sounding), but it doesn't sound as if you have put much thought into why or what it's going to do or how this fits into WP, etc. It sounds to me like you are more interested in forming an official-sounding committee than solving any problem.

Brainstorming solutions is fine. Making up tall hats for yourselves is not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As explained, DevCom membership affords no additional respect from the community or userrights, so "making up tall hats" doesn't really apply. We've put thought into its role in WP (see the page itself, starting "DevCom is tasked with looking at..." and ending after the bit about ArbCom/MedCom) and an initial list of areas to look at already exists, and is being directly applied. The discussions above are to make sure that when we present this to the community (however we're going to do this) it is a concrete, well-arranged and well-structured body with every sentence having its reasoning worked out - that way it won't fall foul of exactly what it is trying to prevent; a new idea crushed under "what-iffs" and disagreements between 50 different users. Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And more to the point, there's no tall-hat-making here, as anyone who wishes to be involved in this would require the support of the community to do so. This is a direct response to WP:ACPD, which was formulated by ArbCom for the exact same purpose: to examine problem areas and propose solutions in a streamlined focus-group environment. That proposal was roundly shot down at its RfC, as the overwhelming majority of editors concurred that such things should not be sprung out of whole cloth with an invited membership. → ROUX ₪ 23:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And not to be a total dick here, but everything you're objecting to is described on the page. So there does remain a bit of a question: have you actually read it? → ROUX ₪ 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"no additional respect from the community or userrights" - Anything that involves the words "committee" and elections will appear to be an "official" body with extra rights and demanding greater respect, whether it does or not. Furthermore, you are proposing this as a "Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process" and a body that will act as a consultation group for ArbCom and the Mediation Committee. Using phrases like "an advisory body" that is "tasked with investigating a particular issue and suggesting solutions" inflates the group beyond what it is entitled to assume. Who "tasked" this body with any "particular" issue?

Why not simply create a Wikiproject? Why the grand titles? Why the elected offices? Why the limited membership? Why the invented ties to ArbCom and the Mediation Committee?

"This is a direct response to WP:ACPD..." - and that didn't go down to well either, did it? This "committee" no different.

"....everything you're objecting to is described on the page..." I know. I've read the page. And everything I'm objecting to is described on it. That's the problem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a key point here - this body is meant to be community approved once it gets running. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to describe it in an official manner since it is intended to be official. You keep saying you've read the relevant pages, yet I have to doubt the validity of your claim if you insist on saying things like "this committee is no different from WP:ACPD" - you've read the development committee page, yes? And the RfC on ACPD as well? Because I would have thought that in a situation where the main stumbling block for ACPD was that it was not community approved or elected, and where this organisation is intended to be both community approved and elected, you might be able to spot a difference somewhere. Ironholds (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is pretty much the same as coṁrá's. This looks like a pointless bureaucractic body which would do something the community does already. What purpose is served by restricting the discussion of matters to 20 people who probably have no particular expertise in those matters? All you're doing is excluding the other [whatever large number] of editors who might be able to contribute productively to the discussion. That's not to say the community's decision-making processes don't need streamlining, but this proposal seems not to be a way forward. (Practical human-nature observation: give anyone a hat - through election, appointment or whatever - and they stop listening and talking normally to people without hats. Sadly noticed to be true on WP in the case of admins (some), arbitrators (many), developers (the powerful ones at least). I'm sure the same would happen with DevCom members.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea is, as you say, to streamline it. We do not intend to cut people with specific expertise out of the resulting body - firstly the application of a lottery system will hopefully see people of varying viewpoints elected to the committee, secondly because as the main DevCom page suggests, in situations where we're looking at specific problems we hope to invite non-Committee members in from both/all sides of a dispute to give their 1.23 cents (adjusted for inflation and the shitty exchange rate). The problem is that the community doesn't do this already - policy and process reform almost never succeeds because it gets buried under a tide of what-ifs and arguments over exactly which shade of the colour blue they're looking for in a decision. The only changes I've ever seen made in recent memory are those in which only 15-20 people turn up to discuss it, because more than that and it becomes unmanageable. Ironholds (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A cabal? I think not:

Noun: cabal. [1] A clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue. [2] A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot). Verb: cabal (caballed, caballing) [1] Engage in plotting or enter into a conspiracy, swear together (eg: "They conspired to overthrow the government").

Everything will be open to the general community, will be above board and will be out in the open here. Wikipedia is in crisis, practical steps need to be taken to correct this, and DevCom seems a great way to generate relevant and practical solutions. I am with DevCom all the way. Esowteric+Talk 08:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All the way? Brilliant. Roux! Roux! I've found a third person to take part in our baby-eating and jimbo-dismembering plan! Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think we have no big issues at Wikipedia, then please have a look at or get involved with Wikipedia:Areas for Reform. Esowteric+Talk 08:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I should publicly declare an interest as I am one of several editors here at the behest of the Secret Chiefs Esowteric+Talk 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that DevCom's affiliation with ArbCom would be on a "if you want to" basis. To the best of my knowledge there's no existing deal between the two entities, and they are under no obligation to listen to the DevCom. But by stating that DevCom's goal is to service ArbCom, it is as though DevCom is bidding for their attention. They could then choose to use the DevCom as they wish. —harej (talk) (cool!) 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But they shouldn't be listening to the views of 20 people (elected, true, but that can't make them representative of the views and expertise of the community on every issue) when they could be listening to the arguments of everyone who has something to say on a matter. I really find this a weird and anti-wiki-ish idea. Streamlining needn't mean shutting people out of the debate or forcing them to go through another level of bureaucracy to get their arguments heard - there are many ways in which discussions could be streamlined to ensure that considered decisions are reached and implemented, but without restricting them to a select group. It's not a matter a power, it's just that these people will get it wrong on many occasions because they will miss vital arguments (and they won't listen to people from outside their clique telling them they've got it wrong, mark my words...)--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen a single person say that the DevCom is intended to ignore other people. This would be a managerial framework and not a divine legislature deliberating from within the Fortress of Solitude. —harej (talk) (cool!) 09:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If it serves to manage debates between everyone, then fine. If it serves to make its members privileged participants in debates, then not fine. Intended or otherwise, the effect will be to make other voices ignored.--Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can provide a description and analysis of problems and suggest possible solutions at (say) Wikipedia:Areas for Reform; anyone will be able to contact or canvas DevCom (perhaps we need to figure out possible mechanisms to ensure a wide input?). Wikiwide debates have their drawbacks and previous solutions to big issues are falling over. DevCom would provide a means to focus and effectively advise on big issues. Something needs to be done, and someone needs to do it. Esowteric+Talk 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, ArbCom would? —harej (talk) (cool!) 09:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (typo fixed)

DevCom, I presume he meant. But advise whom? Advise the community as to what it is they think? I can see the problem with what we have at the moment, but I don't see how this proposal is a solution to it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Better idea as to what members of such a committee might do - in cases where a discussion isn't producing a clear outcome, take control of the discussion, get the issues and arguments properly and clearly set out, ensure everyone focuses on those, give everyone a chance to make their views known, judge in the end whether "Consensus" (a decision) has been reached, and for what. All this done effectively, but with dialogue. As an elected body, it could viably make binding decisions by vote. But they should not be "what is right" decisions, they should be "what the community has decided is right" decisions. That is a geniunely necessary function that the community can't necessarily perform for itself.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely a good idea. —harej (talk) (cool!) 09:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Another pressing need, as I see it, is for a means that provides proper dialogue between Developers and editors. Again, such dialogue should be open to the whole community, but if the devs are unwilling to risk talking to so many real people at once, it might prove more practical to have some kind of joint committee to provide that dialogue.--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Community involvement, insulation and taking the flak

Looking at this from the perspective of those who end up in DevCom, whilst the support of and input from the wider community here is welcome and to be encouraged, this group, too, may end up being overwhelmed, develop a backlog and have too many balls in the air to work effectively and systematically. Mechanisms may need to be in place to insulate DevCom from too much external pressure so that they can get on with the task/s in hand. I've come across groups of IT developers who make use of a front guy/gal to take and handle the flak that comes their way. Esowteric+Talk 09:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The fixed-term and term limitation would serve well as insulation from political pressure, if that is what you are referring to. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That and the weight and quantity of simple requests (or demands). btw, Skunkworks project is maybe worth a look-see, too. Esowteric+Talk 18:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Strategic planning initiative

Saw this on Signpost, probably of interest to those contributing here: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Special advisory councils instead of a permanent body

I have given my reasons here. I'm convinced that a permanent body wouldn't be successful in this role, its conclusions on a particular case would likely be biased, it would become political, even more so with elections, which is bad, etc. Instead the community should appoint a special advisory council to investigate a particular issue, as I described there. However, I would support a permanent body of 'representatives', but not for this role, I'll work out a proposal at some time. Cenarium (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whereas it would be best that there would be a lasting structure so that we do not need to think about how to solve Pickle X this time around for each time around. The use of sortition is supposed to de-politicize the process as much as possible (although it's the Checkuser/Oversight election process copied verbatim with sortition clumsily attached; I hope to fix this). What do you mean by "its conclusions on a particular case would likely be biased"? As I have said (or wanted to say before thinking of something else to say), I have thought of the DevCom as more of a structure for getting the work done than a deliberative body; people who know what they are talking about would be helping out the most. —harej (talk) (cool!) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note from the proposal page: DevCom can create working groups to investigate specific problems, analogous to Wikiproject Taskforces. These working groups are made up of both Committee members and other members of the community, with care being taken to ensure representation from people of all views. —harej (talk) (cool!) 15:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If we have a permanent advisory committee with no well-defined issue to investigate, then they will have to (1) define an agenda and prioritize, this is political (2) when investigating a particular case, almost only users with a strong view on the subject would really participate, so it'll be biased, while an advisory council specially formed for the case would not. I think a committee cannot have both the role of organizing major community discussions and providing advises on particular cases. I had though of something like this:

There is an "assembly of representatives" with all or some of those prerogatives:

• appoint special advisory councils to investigate specific issues and propose solutions
• organize community discussions on certain major topics, in a form of a structured RFC (ArbCom did this a few times, e.g. WP:DATEPOLL, WP:AERFC), so have to fix an agenda
• for committee elections, appoint successful candidates (currently done by Jimbo)
• start the process to amend arbitration and other 'constitutional' policies (currently done by ArbCom itself, WP:AP)
• start the process to impeach a committee member or a representative
• other 'political' tasks that can't be satisfactorily conducted by community consensus

They would act of their own initiative or based on request. It would grant the assembly a certain political power that is currently mostly in ArbCom's hands but in an obscure way. Members are elected annually, a majority and at least x votes of supports is required, no upper limit; this way it's non-ambiguous. The community can dissolve the assembly. All discussions are on-wiki, no mailing lists or other official communication channels. I'm currently working on proposing this, and a reform of the final steps of dispute resolution. Cenarium (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The startup goals listed on the main DevCom page give a fairly straightforward list of goals - there's an agenda. Your argument that enthusiastic/opinionated = biased is confusing to me - 1) what, would you get people who don't give a monkeys involved in decisions? and 2) the idea, as stated, is to bring in people from all sides of a discussion for these working groups. Surely that should even out biased? I'm a bit dispirited by people posting objections on these pages who don't seem to have even read the main one fully. Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I read it, and my statement on the RFC applies here too. It says "DevCom is tasked with looking at problems facing the community and brainstorming possible solutions, which are then taken to the community in a draft form for approval". It then says that it can (also) create working groups. There's a confusion between the role of facilitator and adviser. The DevCom should facilitate the development of community consensus by planing and organizing community discussions or creating advisory councils ( ~ working groups), but is should not advise itself (otherwise, the problems I mentioned in my RFC statement will arise, bias will occur when a permanent committee advises on a particular issue, while it doesn't occur - that much - when a specifically-created committee advises on a particular issue, because precisely, people from all sides will weigh in, which would not be possible with a permanent body). So I think it should be a facilitator role, rather than advisory or both. Cenarium (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong (or uncommon) about a working committee that happens to be a think tank or focus group forming ad hoc working groups. Esowteric+Talk 18:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep talking about "a permanent body wouldn't be successful in this role". Have you seen the well-thought-out documentation about folk being voted in to serve (non-consecutive) terms in office? Esowteric+Talk 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By permanent committee, I mean not limited in time, even with members periodically renewed. Our project is based on volunteering, there's no guarantee all members of a permanent committee will be interested and substantially work to advise on a particular issue, so the views of the persons most interested in the subject will be predominant. Whereas if we appoint a committee specifically for the issue at hand, more views will be incorporated. Permanent advisory councils are viable in a "real-life" environments, or when they have a more focused target, but not on Wikipedia (volunteering-based project) with no precise mandate ('project development' is too large). Cenarium (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

opposition

I am adamantly opposed to creating any new committee with closed membership. Individuals are always free to prpoopose policies for the community to debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, it must be pointed out that no one will be prevented from proposing policies. This just helps to coordinate the effort. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What he said. → ROUX ₪ 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need help "coordinating" the effort? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see DevCom as a threat to your own initiative (Areas for Reform) which has come up with some good ideas which could be taken onboard, nor for that matter do I see a threat to Cenarium's own proposed initiative, and I for one am not into building up and knocking down other people's sand castles. Have you seen Wikimedia strategic planning: Call for proposals, btw? Does this also make "Areas for Reform" redundant? Esowteric+Talk 09:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that at the end of lengthy "shoot 'em outs" between proposals and counter-proposals, and maybe even a lack of interest and momentum in whatever proposal eventually survives, we end up back where we started, without the work being done. Actually getting the work done — one way or another — is the chief objective. Esowteric+Talk 10:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute ... there are more such "sand castles"? ... This is starting to make more sense. So, if the "development" of WP is the central matter - and not the "tall hats", as I called it above - why don't you collaborate with each other on this effort? Why the need for wearing your own "tall hat" in your own "sand castle"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any such need. They are merely different approaches to the same problem, and if you would bother reading the actual page you would note that this proposal explicitly takes advantage of what slrubenstein has been working on. → ROUX ₪ 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Assembly of representatives

You may be interested in the proposed assembly of representatives, which would have some of the prerogatives of this committee, specifically appointing advisory groups and working groups and initiating and organizing community discussions, among others. Comments welcome. Cenarium (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, this is a wiki, pursue your proposal and get it running. —harej (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

When are we starting?

I believe the membership issue was the only thing we had left to settle. When can we get started? —harej (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

ASAP. My computer access is intermittent for the next few days; my monitor died and I have to borrow my roommate's when he's not using it. → ROUX ₪ 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Give us a poke when you get back on wiki. I note we haven't included any restrictions on ArbCom and MedCom members being excluded from the pool of candidates - I'm pretty sure arbitrators were at some point, but what about mediators? Same logic applies really - 1) too many hats and 2) the committee can be asked to work on something for them, which creates a potential COI. In addition I'd like to take advantage of the points above made by users opposed to this and include retorts in the main text so that we don't have to explain the same thing to every user who comes on through with a problem. I'll draft something and have it up this evening. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Expanded slightly. Harej, I see you above mentioning tweaks to the election process. Any luck? Ironholds (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to delay the start of this more than necessary, but I am still concerned that the process entails too much election, making the added sortition process sound unnecessary. If you believe that it should be an election, I want it to be made clear. —harej (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is, and clearly states that it is, an election. I believe the sorting process is necessary to ensure a slightly more broad range of views than a straight election would. Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is acknowledged as an election, and the sortition process acknowledges itself as a minor feature, but for a non-trivial reason. I am fine with that. —harej (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good good. So, any luck tweaking the election page? Ironholds (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back for reals tomorrow sometime. Yes, I think ArbCom & MedCom members should be restricted, I think we should can the 'liaison' and simply have 21 people one of whom will act as facilitator chosen by the group (again, see here), and beyond that I say let's get a notice put up at VPP, CENT (if possible), AN--including a very specific point that this is not a referendum on the existence of this group (except inasmuch as if nobody runs, no group), but the chance to select who will be part of this think tank. → ROUX ₪ 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me; we can put that together tomorrow. Have we got a full election template together, then? And, just thinking ahead - how is the committee going to seek community approval after the election? Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How? By whether or not the community listens to suggestions put forth. Also get on FB. → ROUX ₪ 04:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So there'll be no formal approval process - the Committee will be elected and get cracking? Fair does. And in line with Tony1's suggestions to set out at least the basics of procedure, how will the committee talk? Mailing list? workforce talkpages? Ironholds (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages. I want this committee to operate as openly as possible. If it requires a mailing list for whatever reason in the future, it can get one. —harej (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Would be my suggestion too. Harej, you mentioned you were working on an election template - any luck? Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that. You may have confused that with my remarks that I wanted to change the election process, but after you explained how the system that will be used is good, I changed my mind. —harej (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ahh, must've confused your remarks with something else :S. Right, I'll get on to designing that. Ironholds (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Outdent: User:Ironholds/DevComElection2009 is what I've got so far. No idea how to make a fancy-dan easy-to-use transclusion bugger, though. Ironholds (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New related projects

Here are a couple of new related projects:

• Wikipedia: Community facilitation (WikiProject)
• Wikipedia: Community Issues
• Wikimedia strategic planning: Issues

Esowteric+Talk 11:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional queries

Just some thoughts I had in relation to Tony's suggestion that we set up summat more detailed:

• Are we going to bother drafting internal regulations and the like as a rough setup, or leave that entirely to the Committee?
• Assuming that we're going to bother...

1. can individual users suggest things to look at? User "ooh, X needs improvement, as a policy/whatever it is a matter of some dispute" or "I had this suggestion about..." Committee: "that sounds helpful, lets take a look"
2. How are working groups made up? I'd suggest five committee members, with a case-by-case number of outside people and a proviso that all sides must be represented fairly (although "fairly" may be tricky).
3. How are proposals set up? my suggestion would be to have Wikipedia:Development Committee/Proposals/User migration where the Committee drafts a report/suggestion, and the talkpage for committee discussion.
4. How does the committee change internal rules? I'd suggest a similar method to that used by ArbCom, amended to take into account the lack of mailing list.
5. Would it be useful if I drafted a page structure for the committee?
6. Does it need clerks?

• This is just immediate brainstorming - I'm sure more stuff will turn up inside my head. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave the organizational structure to the Committee itself when it forms. I find it essential that individuals should be able to propose things to the Committee. DevCom could change its internal rules by a simple vote. We could use a page structure. And as far as I know, clerks are not necessary yet. —harej (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good good - I'll get cracking on that then. Ironholds (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Page structure: I'm thinking something ArbCom-like, but tweaked. The page is divided into three sections - About, Requests and Clarification. "About" is a brief "what is DevCom", "Requests" is where MedCom/ArbCom/individual users can request the Committee take a looksee at something. Clarification is something we won't need for a while - it is where people can request the Committee clarify something they've said in a previous decision/proposal. As well as this there'll be two template boxes, again nicked from Arbcom. One will give links to an About page, Internal Regulations, that whole kit and kaboodle, the other will show active proposals the Committee is dealing with, with a title, start-date, estimated finish date and a link to the page where it is being looked at. Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of an internal regulation page? —harej (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a way of listing how the committee works and how things are set up - how are proposals accepted? How do you form a working group? Who decides which outsiders should be on the working group? How many outsiders should be on it? That sort of thing. Arbcom has something like that set up. Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"A camel is a horse designed by committee"

Overall, I would say that quote sums up my views on this entire "experiment." The entire point of the Arbitration Committee's Advisory Council on Project Development was that you might be able to get some people involved who usually shy away from elections and drama. You might be able to get people involved who don't have every Arb-related page on their watchlist and comment at cases on a weekly basis. Or who don't visit AN/I hourly to keep up with the latest drama.

But, all of that seems to have been lost and now we've got this camel: an awkward beast full of policy and procedure (and an election included, free of charge!). Alas.

Minor points that stuck out while skimming this:

• "This user is similar to the Speaker of the British House of Commons - he does not have a vote except in a split decision."
  • I don't know what this voting is referring to.
• "20 members at large, of which at least seven must not be users with sysop or higher userrights."
  • I think there are some in the community who would fight to the death this notion that being a bureaucrat or CheckUser is "higher" than being an admin.
• "Membership in DevCom confers no userrights, authority, power, or special standing in the community."
  • Inherent to membership is a special standing; I think this is trying to state that the community shouldn't view it that way. If so, just say that. But let's not pretend you can have membership in an exclusive organization, but still be exactly like everyone else. That simply doesn't make sense.

These are all minor points, as I noted. The larger problems still exist (and will likely prohibit this idea from ever becoming more than a proposed experiment), but I don't have the time or the patience to discuss the more substantive issues more than I already have. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taken into account, and I'm tweaking as a result. Obviously I can't do anything about the unmentioned "more substantive issues". Ironholds (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The people who would be elected would not be the only participants. Honestly, I am not sure why there would be 21 members — that seems a bit excessive, considering that the committee will be appointing working groups with a considerable number of members outside of the committee. —harej (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but lets say we have a working group of nine to deal with an issue - five members, two people from each side of whatever divide. With 20 members we can deal with four issues at once - the more you reduce the numbers, the fewer things the committee can deal with. In addition a 21-member Committee helps represent the community better than say a five-member committee, where you can only have five views expressed. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In order: voting internally on whether/how/what to propose to the community, 'higher' (perhaps a bad word choice) inasmuch as nobody gets to the other positions without being a sysop), meh. → ROUX ₪ 04:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

chip chip

If nobody is going to speak up with "no, should be postponed for (reason X) I'm going to open the election pages up officially this evening in aboot an hour. Takers? Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just thought of one - need to query arbcom about it, doh. Doing so now. Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to have an election to have a talking body created, great. But if this body is to have any actual authority beyond making suggestions, this may be a bit premature. "The Development Committee is similar to a Royal Commission, an advisory body tasked with investigating a particular issue and suggesting solutions" seems to suggest that the suggestions emitted by this body have some particular weight beyond those that folk may come up with. Also, if I want good ideas, I'm going to appoint, not elect, my "expert panel". I want to hear from smart people, not popular ones. (disclaimer: I became aware of this when Ironholds mailed the Functionaries-en mailing list) ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We've recognized on the talk page that the DevCom won't have immediate authority, but that it should get something going because as a wiki, it's best to do without asking first (I take credit for egging on Roux and Ironholds to go along with that notion). While the goal is to get some recognition, we know that won't come unless a tangible effort can be demonstrated first (proposals tend to go nowhere because of circular bickering and a loss of focus). The people who get elected would generally be coordinators, with "experts" getting appointed on a case-by-case basis; those who get elected will be because they're trusted to keep proposal discussions on task. —harej (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The body is intended to make suggestions. It makes it clear that it only makes suggestions in the actual page. With the Advisory Committee snafu a few months ago the community made it clear that they'd rather have an elected body than an appointed team of quote unquote "experts", which included users normally one step away from a community ban. The committee is similar to a Royal Commission in that it produces a report on a particular matter after consulting "experts" on the subject, but doesn't enact it - rather the report is used as a starting point for something enacted by the legislature, or in this case the community. I must question if you've fully read the page when you suggest that the proposals will be made by those most popular rather than those with the most expertise - if you've read the entire thing you'll have seen the section on working groups, groups which include outsiders with particular expert knowledge. "popular, not experts" - there's something that's always a problem. If that's how you judge things you shouldn't be a checkuser. Why? Checkusers are *gasp* elected! They're obviously just popular yet incompetent. Ironholds (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I read enough of it to see that it wasn't appointing recognised experts. CUs don't HAVE to be elected, the WMF provides for two mechanisms. But I think the community is better at electing people they widely trust than people they think are smart enough to make profound and novel suggestions. But as a note, if you're trying to influence me that you've a good idea here, attacking my competence (even as a rhetorical device) probably isn't a good start. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Read more in future, then? You'd have seen that while the base members aren't experts, it consults them when putting together a proposal, making part of your argument moot. The community has already expressed, through an RfC, their opposition to a non-elected body of so-called "experts". As a strictly advisory group with no authority whatsoever to push things through it doesn't matter how members are appointed and who they are, since if they come up with stupid ideas the ideas can be ignored. A final point would be that if you have the appointment of members by ArbCom/whoever else, it turns it into an official body without community approval, leaving us with... what arbcom already suggested, and what the community binned quite rapidly. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the whole thing, before I commented the first time, actually. I have a lot of friends and colleagues who are tech writers, and they have a saying: "Communication wasn't did." What that means is that if people report they are confused by a piece of prose, it's much more likely that the prose needs adjusting than that the people do. If you want to generate lots of opposition to this idea, please continue your combative approach. But if you want to gain allies, dial down the invective and try a more collaborative approach instead. This proposal, as written, isn't clear. Take some of the energy you're putting into trying to belittle me and others who are confused by it, and put that energy into making the proposal clearer. ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I know after reading some of the stated concerns I tried to make the nature of the proposal more clear. I also condemned the aggressive nature of the discussion and tried to reconcile the differences. The other three guys of the 70% have announced they're burnt out, so that leaves me as the only active "framer" left. Unless you want to help make this a solid proposal. It should go without saying, but you're always welcome to help. —harej (T) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it reads better now. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, and this is just an idea, perhaps they could stop belittling us and demonstrating that they have not read the page? Confusion isn't the issue. Stating things that are objectively and provably unfuckingtrue is the issue. → ROUX ₪ 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm fairly clued up, and if I give something a fair read, and I come away with the view that the writer is saying "the moon is made of green cheese", maybe it's my fault, and maybe it isn't. If 10 people all come away with that, maybe it's all 10 of their faults, rather than that of the writer. But the probability shifted. You do what you want with this input you're being given, I've made my point. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I wish to make it clear that my intention in creating this group is very explicitly to have absolutely no authority whatsoever, unless the community at large decides to invest it with some. The Royal Commission analogy is a clunky one and not entirely accurate, but the best we could come up with. → ROUX ₪ 04:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to keep working harder... ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I may try and clarify that example tomorrow morning. Quick notice, as Lar as already suggested, I've emailed the functionaries mailing list seeking people to keep an eye on the election. Users won't be auto-checkusered, but ideally they'll have somebody keeping a close eye. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A better analogy

MedPAC — a group that was enacted by Congress to give advice. It was left to its own devices, it published reports, and Congress did not take them seriously until 12 years after they were established. I'm not saying the DevCom will be opining to a non-caring audience for years, but that it is starting out as an organization without teeth. —harej (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

4 editors = 70% of discussion ... mandate? Original WP:CENT discussion?

Comments were invited to this page with the question, "Should a committee be formed to discuss and influence the development of Wikipedia?" Since then a total of 28 editors have posted comments to this page. 70% of posts to this page have been by four editors (159 posts out of 227 in total). The editors posting were fairly evenly split between yes, no and maybe. Replies to editors opposed to the idea came invariable from the same four editors who constituted 70% of the discussion.

From the start the discussion on the page was centered around not whether a committee should be formed, but when. "Nominations" have now been opened for seats on the committee and a date has been set for elections to the committee. Where did the mandate for this come from? From the four editors that constituted 70% of the discussion?

What happened to the original RFC WP:CENT discussion? Having heard the viewed of 28 editors, should a committee be formed to discuss and influence the development of Wikipedia? Or having heard the views of 4 editors, should a committee be formed to discuss and influence the development of Wikipedia (a.s.a.p.)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And? Those four editors are the ones putting it together. The fact that others only choose to chip in with suggestions rather than get foursquare behind it and help push it through means zilch. Ironholds (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC) now a point has actually been raised

What RfC? The original RfC on the Advisory Group ArbCom set up was never designed to look at this. General consensus on that RfC was "it is probably needed, but not like this" - that's "should it be set up" dealt with. Nominations have not been opened, it's still getting put together, as the discussion immediately above this one would tell you. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What RFC? The advertised discussion on WP:CENT (not quite a "formal" RfC). The fact that editors in general were fairly evenly split on the idea does mean more than zilch. 70% of posts may have been by four editors who were "foursquare behind it" but the input from editors in general was not. This was a discussion on the question, "should" such a committee be formed, not "when". The view of editors in general were run roughshod over by a stampede of four editors pushing to get their idea up and running ASAP regardless of what opinion was.

"...as the discussion immediately above this one would tell you..." I don't see where you mean. Page itself says they are open. In either case, it's irrevelent - open, soon-to-be opened or desired to be opened, where does the mandate for this "committee" come from? Four editors? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Section starting "chip chip" implies we're going to start, but have things to deal with. The start times for the elections were set a month or so back, and are not fixed. Once again - this committee is entirely unnoficial, has no binding power and does not have to be listed to be the community. I don't see why people find it so difficult to read the damn page and see that as it is at the moment, it doesn't need a mandate. If election turnout is shoddy then it'll probably get scrapped. If people are interested in the idea and vote, it will be seen as minor tacit approval, although the election isn't intended to be a referendum on the matter. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see why people find it so difficult to read the damn page..." Maybe they don't? I've read it. The page talks about an "initial mandate", about links to the Arbitration and Mediation Committees, about being "similar to a Royal Commission" (i.e. an officially-appointed body), that "[m]embership in DevCom is similar to that of ArbCom.", that the group will be "an advisory body tasked with investigating issues" (tasked by who? advising who?) etc.

Maybe changing the name from "committee" would help (to avoid confusion with genuinely official committees like ArbCom and the Mediation Committee)? Maybe don't describe yourselves as an "advisory body" for the ArbCom or Mediation Committees (since you are not)? Maybe don't say you "tasked" with anything (since you are not) or that you have an "initial mandate" (since you do not)? Maybe don't say that membership will be similar to that of ArbCom (since it will not)? Maybe don't say you are similar to a "Royal Commission" (since you are not)? etc.

Why not set up a WikiProject? Would that hat not be tall enough for you (to continue the metaphor form earlier)? Would that sand castle not be big enough? Then take a lead from the Mediation Cabal - explicitly saying that you are not official (even the level of being almost self-derogatory) or that you have links to anything (elections? who needs them?). No matter how often you repeat it, no matter how much bold the text you use is, if you call yourselves a committee, if you hold elections, if say that you are an "advisory body", "like a Royal Commission", "tasked with investigating issues" and so forth, you are implying that you are "official" and that you have some sort of authority ... when you are/have neither.

But before that, please stop assuming that everyone who offers a critical voice on this page must "find it so difficult to read the damn page". That has been the response to every critical post (not only of mine but of every other critical voice on this page). It is a sign of burying your head in the sand. And you are shoring up trouble for yourselves. If you did not want to hear critical voices then you should not have advertised for them on WP:CENT? Now is the time to bring the critique that they raise into the project. Instead, the "committee" as it stands is the work of a mere four that have made 70% of the posts and blinkered out voice that echo their own. If you want this to succeed, you will eventually have to face the critical voices en masse. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First line of the page - "In a nutshell: DevCom has no authority whatsoever. It is a focus group". Do you see why I maybe think you haven't read it? I've raised it above, yes, because other criticisms were also already covered in the page, and on at least one occasion the critic has admitted that yes, they didn't bother to read the whole thing. Please don't attribute motives to me involving "hats" - until you develop the ability to see inside someone's head it's not something that's going to end well, or accurately. Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For those of us that have read further down the page, past just the first line, that really doesn't cut it. So, like every time that I have posted here (as with every other critical voice), you are not interested in discussing the issues that I raise - but just ploughing on regardless? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your issues have all been dealt with, either here or in the main page. Since you've read all of it including the first line, a more reasonable comment might have been "what does X mean in relation to the first line? Can you clarify? You might want to change the wording of Y", not "2kb Of Why Nobody Is Listening To Me". Ironholds (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Three paragraphs of "you might want to change the wording of Y" and one paragraph of "you might want to listen up a little more" ... and what you see is four paragraphs of "2kb Of Why Nobody Is Listening To Me"? Certainly that last paragraph fell on deaf ears. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting too nasty. Rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, I appreciate your concerns that this committee gives off an air of superiority. That is not our intent. I will see what I can do to make the proposal reflect what is actually wanted — not even "the 70%" want this to be stuffy and elite. I already got rid of the Royal Commission analogy because it's misleading. —harej (T) 18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And the rest that is misleading e.g. the implied links to ArbCom/Mediation Committee, saying that the group has an "initial mandate", that is it "tasked" with something, styling the group as a "committee", describing it as an "advisory body", the conducting of elections to offices (i.e. creating a closed cabal)?

The question was, "Should a committee be formed to discuss and influence the development of Wikipedia?" Chasing away those that answer 'no' is not the way to answer the question. 70% of posts coming from the four editors that asked the question is not the way to answer the question. As someone who conducts focus groups for a living, this does not bode well for a "committee" that claims to be "tasked" with the object of forming a focus group. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that those who are opposed have good points, and I don't condone the argumentative behavior that has been taking place here. I changed the part on ArbCom and MedCom, saying that they are welcome to make use of the DevCom without implying any existing link between the two. (There is none, as you said). "Initial mandate" was more a case of inaccurate language, so I reworded it to say that it's a recommendation (it is a good idea, after all). I disagree that DevCom isn't tasked; it is tasked, but it tasked itself (if that makes any sense). You do have a point that calling it the Development Committee implicitly confers authority, so I will think of alternative names. As for elections, lower on this talk page a user pointed out that elections are bad, and while I agree, we've been having problems figuring out a lottery system that is not overly exclusive. I don't see how "advisory body" would be misleading language, since it would give advice after all.

While I don't believe that the Development Committee should be entitled to any special recognition (and am thinking of ways of reducing that notion), I do believe in being bold and going ahead with an idea because it's better to try it and improve as it goes along (or scrap it entirely) instead of holding round-table talks before doing even the simplest thing, just as we expect when we edit articles. —harej (T) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, by "we" and "us" I mean those of us who have been most active in developing the proposal. I definitely want to see more help and more input, and I don't like the confrontational tone that the critics have been getting. —harej (T) 19:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Elections vs. appointment vs lottery

I continue to be disappointed that elections are being used to decide membership in this group. In order to broaden the group of people that participate in discussions with each other, I want to fish in a different pool. I'm concerned that up front we eliminate the people that I will not run in an election, and during the election we eliminate people based on some real or perceived defect that is unrelated to knowledge or skill that a person can bring to think tank.

If the size of the group is an issue that needs to be controlled, and appointments are a problem in the eyes of some people, then a lottery would be a better approach since it answers several problems. 1) Eliminates elections. 2) Less time consuming process. 3) Easier to deal with attrition as people leave the committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We already use a partial lottery system in the proposed election setup. A full lottery is an idea, but I'd like a base standard to set (over 3,000 edits, or something) so we don't get Bill from Surrey and his four dogs on the committee. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Using a lottery after the election does not address my concern that this method will screen out too many people from the "get go". FloNight♥♥♥ 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, then. A straight lottery with a base requirement, such as a certain number of edits, does have an attractiveness to it. I'd suggest seeing what others here say. Personally I kind of prefer that to the election system - I don't know why nobody really thought of it or they did and I didn't notice . Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, Flonight, thank you for your constructive criticism, the kind that actually helps us. We thought of a lottery system, then we decided that we could not think of a base level that everyone could agree to. Then we decided the communitah could do that, and before you know it we ended up with elections with sortition on the side. If the idea is not dead, I'd like to scrap the election process entirely and to adopt a standard by which we can get work done. (Besides, the fact that the DevCom would in turn appoint people for working committee helps to bring on "unelectable" talent.) —harej (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"A standard by which we can get work done" - so a direct election, or a lottery, or what? Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say, were it possible, we should come up with the base eligibility standards for a lottery. —harej (T) 17:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. Proposed base standard - 3,000 edits, six months on wiki. Nice balance that shouldn't cut out relatively new users, but should cut out absolute newbies. Ironholds (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I approve. Who else? —harej (T) 18:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this (lottery) process, but I am largely past caring. I thought this was a good idea, I thought it was very clear, and instead people--as is depressingly usual for Wikipedia--show up, read three words, and then get all snippy about what they have decided was written instead of actually reading what has been actually written and responding to that instead. Which, of course, is one of the problems this entire thing was meant to address. I am utterly disheartened; I should have known it was too much to hope for that people would actually listen to what they are being told about something, but I held out hope nonetheless. At this point I really don't care how members are selected, because I am now of the belief that the group will have absolutely no effect whatsoever, and people like rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid will spend their time merrily complaining about it without actually paying any attention to what is being said. Good luck with whatever format you choose. → ROUX ₪ 19:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, a statement I agree with. The only thing this discussion has changed is my attitude - I'm off to write articles instead of trying to fix what's centrally wrong with the encyclopedia. Ironholds (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been of much use here. I have other urgent personal tasks, but I, too, am disheartened by the way things are turning out here. I know how you feel. Many thanks for your sterling efforts.Esowteric+Talk 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This proposal's advocates want elections. Other proposal advocates (admittedly in a minority) want ArbCom to appoint experts. Still others advocate a lottery. If none of these resulting groups is empowered to do more than make suggestions, and none of them is to be considered "better" than any other...??? why then Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let this proposal go forward, as written, clear or unclear, and let the community see what the members so selected come up with. Let the ArbCom panel go forward as well. Let someone else put forward a lottery proposal, and see what THEY come up with. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you're proposing a free market of competing focus groups. —harej (T) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Disclaimer, this idea was mooted on the functionaries-en list by someone else, so I'm not taking credit for it, just for liking it. But if what we want is ideas, why not take them from whatever source. ArbCom's baby (which everyone called ugly) this, whatever else... good ideas should do well, regardless of source. One would hope. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that great ideas get torpedoed by people who don't actually read what is written, and continue to wilfully misunderstand (and that is being charitable) after having things explained to them multiple times. But, y'know, whatever. I'm over this, I'm removing it from my watchlist, as yet again the people who can't be bothered to read have succeeded in destroying the passion I had for this project. Hooray! Mouthbreathers uber alles! → ROUX ₪ 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose an Ad hoc Lottery Focus Group (ALFG?), based purely on sortition and running for 6 months. (ALFG itself could decide whether to propose renewal after that, and the community whether to accept.) The main stumbling block for making such a proposal is not knowing the technical feasibility - how can such a lottery (assuming simple edit count / tenure qualifications) be operated? Anyone? Rd232 ^talk 10:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this more. I don't think that it has been used anywhere on WP that I can recall, but surely we can find an example of the process used. And hopefully, we can see the details of the process and can adapt them for our use. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rejected? Active?

The proposal page states that it is rejected, yet it is still listed as an active discussion on WP:CENT. Can I ask which it is? AndrewRT(Talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is rejected, since the plan fell apart. @harej 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)