Issues

• Wikimedia Foundation bylaws on removal of Trustees and Officers
• See "A few points" here (prior discussion).

The Wikimedia Foundation's bylaws allow a trustee to be removed simply by a majority vote of all the trustees. This strikes me as an easy way to chill dissent. I don't see any compelling reason to have a process to remove elected members. Obnoxious ones can always simply be outvoted. I hope this section is struck entirely. --SteveFoerster 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There should probably be an entry even if it says "The Member Removal process was given careful considered prior to being discarded. WE have elections to ensure appropriate representation." --Valerie Taylor 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that simply removing a Council member by majority vote could be abused to chill a difference of opinion, and that should not be the intent of removal of a Council member or Officer. However, I do think that there are legitimate reasons where removal may be required.

The box below contains a rough draft for this section which could appear in both members and officers sections of the WCC open governance policy wrt Removal (please comment):

Comments:

• While writing the above first attempt, I added the sentence re each case on its own merit, with w:Fair procedure in mind - Kim Tucker 07:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not having a mechanism for discharge and/or removal of a member in serious/material cases like this could result in significant problems regarding the functioning of Council. In these specified and/or other specified cases we may agree -- I can see the necessity for a voting mechanism (given the seriousness of the removal of a member). It may be prudent to consider a higher threshold, for example 2/3rds majority in the case of removal. In the spirit of good governance and stewardship of community values -- I would argue that we do consider procedures for removal of members. However, we must be sure that removal is not invoked on trivial grounds like a significant difference of opinion. As an open community we should foster and encourage open and frank expression of opinion. --Wayne Mackintosh 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Resources:

• Wikimedia Foundation bylaws on removal of Trustees and Officers
• See "A few points" here (prior discussion).
• See discussion above on Removal of WikiEducator Community Council members.

Whatever the outcome regarding our decisions on the removal of Members of Council -- I would recommend that the same applies for Officers of Council as equal members of Council. --Wayne Mackintosh 02:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• See "A few points" here.
• I wondering whether a two-phase process is needed. Phase 1 -- explore the advantages and disadvantages of the office of Patron for WE. Phase 2 --- implement policy changes based on the outcome of Phase 1? --Wayne Mackintosh 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added a few sections below for Phase 1 (Pros, Cons, Role) - Kim Tucker 16:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• While I understood that Sir John was appointed before there was a community governance model, now that there is one I've come to find the idea of a patron to be elitist and unnecessary. I hope this section is entirely deleted. --SteveFoerster 14:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Steve - I find a 'patron' offensive to the inclusive, self-organizing model that the wiki purports to me. People assume the mantle of leadership, based on their reputation, contribution and activity in the wiki. It is true, that others do contribute to the wiki in ways that may not be visible, but I think it sends the wrong message to our community, that some people are more important than others, and can be 'appointed' to a high level (perceived) leadership position. Now, the reality is that a person who might be considered as a 'patron' can still contribute to the success of the wiki project without being a 'patron'. If they truly desire such recognition, we can look at how they can be recognized as a contributing member of the OER Foundation. There is ample room over there, for this kind or recognition. Randy Fisher 11:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I too find that the role of 'patron' is not a good fit with our self-organising community. We have collective leadership through our community governance model and I share the notion and emerging consensus that the office of Patron should be removed (Clarification: Removed as a member of the Council -- not necessarily abolishment of the role). --Wayne Mackintosh 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Our most influential protagonists and champions might not necessarily arise from the WikiEducator meritocracy.

1. Are there any Pros (see below) or alternative titles that might work?
2. Could we elaborate on the benefits and role (below) of the person or group whose status has been so elevated by the WE community on account of his/her standing in the free/libre/OER world?
3. Please comment - in the Role, Pros, Cons and Alternative Titles sections below I have put down a few points as food for thought. Instead of 'patron' I have written '<title>'. Thanks Kim Tucker 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kim, you're right. Our most influential champions may not arise for the immediate community and hopefully as an open community we will respect the "freedom" of a leader/elder/patron to champion our cause :-) There are clearly advantages to this kind of role and that there are many ways to serve and promote libre knowledge, even if this is not direct involvement in WE. I think the issue is that there needs to be a clear separation from community governance versus the role of a "patron" or "similar position". There are global icons who have championed freedom --- consider for example the inspiration members of WE have derived from Bishop Tutu. We need to think and reflect carefully about the larger goal of building reusable educational resources in support of all national curricula, including the community which supports the attainment of these goals. --Wayne Mackintosh 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wayne, I agree that there needs to be a "clear separation from community goverance" if there is a role at all. If this this "new title/role" is clearly separate from the governing body, would it not be an addition to the WikiMaster Framework or an addition to the WikiAmbassador role? Rob Kruhlak 07:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Role of <title>

The <title>s are highly respected individuals in the world of free/libre and open education, who are well positioned to champion the cause in the upper echelons of society (including EU, UN, Congress, AU, ... please add) and at key events (e.g. eLearningAfrica, ... please add) where there is a need to raise awareness and influence policy/decision makers.

<title>s are identified, selected and approached by the WE community to act in that capacity.

The <title>s provide:

• Leadership during exigent circumstances (below)
• Horizontal and vertical trans-community championing, networking and leadership.

Pros

• The <title>s are able to provide a different perspective than the dominant positions within the WE community.
• The <title>s are already well positioned to influence policy and decision makers.
• The <title>s can support fund-raising for the project

Cons

• Undemocratic
• Elitist
• Organisational patrons may be common in the Commonwealth, but WE is now a global initiative and this sort of thing isn't used in many other cultures.

Comment: We could design a democratic (or other compatible) process. The <title> will be championing the cause of free/libre and open education which is not "elitist". The concept is not foreign to most cultures (elders, community leaders, ..., Wales, Stallman, Gore, Linus, ...) and our variation could be quite relevant. Kim Tucker 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Similarly -- if we agree and achieve consensus on the nature and role of this kind of "libre - statesmanship", we may think of a group of leaders (Friends of WE) rather than an individual. --Wayne Mackintosh 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible Alternative Titles for the Person or Group

• Elder
• Guardian
• WikiPrincipal
• SuperChamp
• The WikaiEducator
• Masters of the Universe (cf Ubuntu MOTU, ... )
• Paragon
• Hero
• Icons
• Statesperson
• Friends of WE
• ...