Workgroup:Amendments to Open Community Governance Policy/Issue Tracker

Issue Tracker for the second draft of the Open Community Governance Policy. For lengthy discussions use the "discussion" tab.

Heading prefixes:


 * "@@": unresolved issues therein
 * ">>": all issues therein are resolved
 * none: no issues identified.


 * See /Colour Key/ - for issue and examples of headers (priority, effort required and status/progress).

>>Statement of purpose
{{Issue
 * collapsed=True
 * submitter=Kim Tucker 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * title=Distinguish WikiEducator's purpose from that of the OER Foundation
 * status=Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=high
 * effort=easy
 * progress=done
 * comments=

To distinguish WikiEducator's purpose from that of the OER Foundation, reword the statement of purpose as follows (or something similar):

First, change the first sentence under Background from


 * WikiEducator is a community-driven, open education initiative.

to


 * WikiEducator is an international community-driven, open education initiative.

Then, reword the statement of purpose to something like:

{{tcb
 * theme=blues
 * width=95
 * caption = Proposed wording - Kim Tucker 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * text =

The purpose of WikiEducator is to provide an international and sustainable on-line collaboration environment for communities of educators (teachers, lecturers, trainers) and other professionals from the formal and informal sectors. WikiEducator is a platform for communities of educators to cooperate on: }}

Objections?

 * None

}}

{{Issue
 * collapsed=True
 * submitter=Kim Tucker 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * title=Minor wording changes for bullets
 * status= Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=high
 * effort=easy
 * progress=done
 * comments=

Change the first and third bullets from:


 * building capacity to design, develop and implement open education materials;

to


 * building capacity to design, develop and use open educational materials;

and from


 * establishing the connections required for implementing relevant technology innovations but also fostering strategic relationships with partners around the world to leverage the benefits of sustainable ecosystems of mass-collaboration.

to


 * establishing the connections required for implementing relevant technology innovations, and fostering strategic relationships with partners around the world to leverage the benefits of mass-collaboration.

Objections?

 * None

}}

>>General responsibilities
{{Issue
 * collapsed=True
 * submitter=Kim Tucker 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * title=Detail not appropriate here
 * status=Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=high
 * effort=trivial
 * progress=done
 * comments=

The following sentence is a detail not appropriate here:

"Agendas of meetings must be posted on WikiEducator at least two (2) days prior to the date of scheduled meetings and corresponding minutes must be posted within fourteen (14) days of a scheduled meeting."

Suggest: move the first part to the section "Meetings" / "Notice":


 * "Agendas of meetings must be posted on WikiEducator at least two (2) days prior to the date of scheduled meetings."

The rest is covered under "Minutes" (a new section to be inserted). Note that the '14 days' will become '30 days' as suggested in the discussion.

Objections
}}
 * None

{{Issue
 * collapsed=True
 * submitter=Kim Tucker 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * title=Consistent punctuation in bullets
 * status=Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=high
 * effort=trivial
 * progress=done
 * comments=

Use semi-colons in the bullets which consist of incomplete sentences (except for the last bullet). Full sentence bullets end with a full stop and start capitalised. Check consistency throughout.

Objections

 * None

}}

>>Note
{{Issue
 * collapsed=True
 * submitter=Kim Tucker 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * title=Reference to previous process - reword to past tense
 * status=Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=high
 * effort=trivial
 * progress=done
 * comments=

Reword to past tense, i.e.


 * In the absence of a formally constituted Council who in the future would carry the responsibility to call and administer elections, and in the absence of an election policy, the first WikiEducator elections were run according to the following electoral process:


 * Election procedures for the first WE Council

Objections

 * None

}}

>>Members
{{Issue
 * collapsed=True
 * submitter=Kim Tucker 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * title=Adjust heading levels
 * status=Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=high
 * effort=trivial
 * progress=done
 * comments=

Adjust heading levels, so that structure becomes:


 * Members
 * Number, tenure and qualification
 * Elected members
 * Nominated members
 * Selection
 * Resignation
 * Vacancies
 * Removal

Objections

 * None

}}

>>Selection
{{Issue
 * collapsed=True
 * submitter=Kim Tucker 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * title="Community" - please clarify?
 * status=Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=high
 * effort=trivial
 * progress=done
 * comments=

Change bullet:

5. "Community" as used in policy documentation, shall be defined by the Council, consistent with the values and strategic aims of WikiEducator.

to

5. "Community" as used in policy documentation, shall be defined by the Council, to be consistent with the values and strategic aims of WikiEducator.

Objections

 * None

}}

>>Minutes
NB This section is not in the current version of the policy. It is proposed for the next.

{{Issue I see no section about minutes. Should be a section added requiring publication of the minutes within a time limit (say 30 days). Location and method of publication should also be stated.
 * collapsed=True
 * title=Minutes
 * submitter=John Stampe 10:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * status= Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=low
 * effort=easy
 * progress=done
 * comments=
 * Hi John, producing minutes when meetings are conducted openly and transparently in the wiki is basically duplication of work -- the wiki pages serve as the minutes of the meeting. Perhaps we need a point regarding our commitment to open philanthropy by hosting meetings openly in the wiki, with a qualification that where this may not be feasible (e.g. privacy law issues) that minutes must be prepared and published on the wiki within 30 days? --Wayne Mackintosh 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: add a last sub-section under "Meetings" called "Minutes" with the following paragraph: (Kim Tucker 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Minutes will be recorded on WikiEducator during the meetings. Where this is not feasible (e.g. privacy law issues), minutes will be prepared and published on WikiEducator within 30 days.

{{tcb |theme = blues |width = 95 |caption = Proposed last sub-section under Meetings |text=

Minutes
Minutes will be recorded on WikiEducator during the meetings. Where this is not feasible (e.g. privacy law issues), minutes will be prepared and published on WikiEducator within 30 days.

Accept:


 * Kim Tucker 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reject (because):

}} }}

>>WikiEducator Patron
{{Issue Discuss and consider amendments with reference to the office of Patron of WikiEducator.
 * collapsed=True
 * title=WikiEducator Patron
 * submitter=Kim Tucker 00:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * status=Closed (done) - Kim Tucker 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * priority=high
 * effort=tricky
 * progress=done
 * comments=
 * 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.
 * Are there any Pros (see below) or alternative titles that might work?
 * 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?
 * 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 ' '. 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
The 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.

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

The s provide:


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

Pros

 * The s are able to provide a different perspective than the dominant positions within the WE community.
 * The s are already well positioned to influence policy and decision makers.
 * The 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 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

For me, "Patron" sounds old fashioned. In my ears, a patron is needed by someone not yet mature. A gray haired man who looks after the youngster and guarantees for his good education... I'd say we don't need him anymore. --GünOss 09:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

All in all it seems there is some consensus to remove this section and possibly bring out the benefits in other ways. - Kim Tucker 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

}}

Patron's Leadership During Exigent Circumstances

 * Ideally this section will be struck along with all other references to a Patron. --SteveFoerster 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, I agree with you on this one. --Wayne Mackintosh 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just in Time Issues
Additional last minute issues (for early March 2010) to finalise Draft 2 are listed on the Just in Time Issues page.