Requests for global roles: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 318: / Line 318: @@
 # You mentioned reducing board bureaucracy. Are there any specific processes that you would change first, and how would you avoid creating chaos or inconsistency?
 # Where do you personally believe the boundary lies between board authority and community governance, and how would you handle situations where that boundary is unclear or contested? -[[User:Globe|Globe]] ([[User talk:Globe|talk]]) 17:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
+:#Consistent availability will not be possible I'm afraid; I expect that I will not be a very prominent everyday figure as there are multiple existing staff and candidates likely to be more visible in the community.  What I offer is more subtle to be elaborated in #2, and I can offer that much because ultimately I am available on discord alone by direct ping pretty much always and at least browse on an occasional basis which I can boost to daily or near-daily on-wiki logins. In the end there is enough investment here I am unlikely to totally vanish, short of an incident so discouraging I no longer wish to have affiliation.
+:# I would prioritize offering a second or alternate view in more involved decisions such as community interventions or CU investigations, being an alternate or fresh, or occasionally quite biased by experience opinion which may rear itself in wiki requests, appeals or again following up on an intervention that was started by another, and as possible soliciting community input and more rarely directly tackling more everyday issues. Where desired I'd like to impart topical experience to peers and help them get new skills. First line wiki reviews, most matters of CU/common vandalism, and support tasks along the steward requests or help desk variety will likely be more quickly served by a peer. How likely I am to chew on those is a measure you can probably gather by how the Miraheze queues are looking as that would necessarily be where I look first on most occasions.
+:#First thought, reducing how much of community process depends on a board specific vote verses what can be delegated to a more flexible and community involved 'lower structure'. Instead of codifying "Operations Team" matters directly into the bylaws, an Operations Team page, or I would honestly prefer Community Team page or category could exist laying out the roles, or being a hub to refer to each role. This can be addressed more flexibly first by an initial board adoption of the starting version and modified later by RfCs, and perhaps consultations that still seek community input but will proceed barring a clear case not to. A similar veto that exists for unsuitable candidates could exist for sparse use on RfCs. I would not consider this course chaotic, and any flaws in this plan that would create inconsistency could be discussed and resolved. For a bonus, the title of operations director itself could well be streamlined into a simple board 'vote of no confidence' and a steward peer may be able to do an emergency removal which later solicits community/board validation. Also along these lines I have thought for a moment now, there is not much semantic purpose to the division of 'safety' and 'steward' operations here. The two often overlap and there is little specialized knowledge or need as far as I know on the platform to make T&S a truly separate process. The two could become one and the existing T&S lead can instead be the T&S contact for the occasional compliance purpose that may come up. I do not see that really causing any problems but any of these thoughts should of course be discussed and not taken at face value.
+:# Its hard to further specify absent a scenario and a case where a steward-only figure would not simply hand the matter to the board and ask 'so what do you want to do here', which is likely the most frequent answer. Technically speaking the way to interpret the line from my part would be to observe the [[Board/Bylaws]] and use that as a model while attempting to approach the situation diplomatically, in other words, ask how can things operate correctly while also keeping the goodwill of the community. It could be to escalate a change to the bylaws to fit or clarify, hand the matter to the board advising a response that does not alienate the user base, or if its the way to go, advise the user(s) that this is the way things are done and how to work with that.
+:::Twisting into more of a 'where ''should'' the boundary lie' question:
+:::It's a matter of purpose. The board acts as a legal and functional necessity to manage boring but crucial matters like finances, the collective 'assets' of the project, specific legal scenarios, perhaps if I am getting ambitious, offering a roadmap and vision and spiritual heart of the platform where each other function comes together, and all of it, in line with what the core mission is, and what the community (that the project is going for) would like to see. And these aspects are ideal to any open service project like this.
+:::On another side of is the community facing core of the project which comes under a team, operations presently. Foremost of these figures, the stewards, though this regularly overlaps with the board. They are part of the whole so I wouldn't like to set a hard boundary and call them 'the community governance' axiomatic to 'board authority', but I think it is reasonable to let the community self-represent, the figures empowered by the people work on their behalf, and for the board to also operate on the community's behalf, but in its more indirect way. If it's not clear what people want then it is the duty of leaders, from stewards to the board or direction-setter of tech, to find that out. Not guess but to find out as objectively as possible.
+:::If these was a situation like a controversial request for comment where a lot of people want something but the board has fully researched the matter and has good reasons not to do it, I think it would be reasonable for the board to explain this and do what should be a rare override. People might have bones to pick but if the decision has been arrived to in a responsible way then it is what it is and the platform moves on.
+:::There are other models that might work, but this is the model I believe Zippy is looking for, as a key founder and the primary technical drive of the platform, and seems to be the direction that others are leaning to as well.
+::--'''[[User:Raidarr|raidarr]]''' '''('''[[User_talk:Raidarr|📡]]''')''' 22:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
 === Discussion ===