User:Scott MacDonald/Community Advisory Council

The Problem this tries to solve
Wikipedia has any number of policy areas where there's a general acceptance that change is needed, but yet change has been impossible to agree through our consensus system - (e.g. RfA, Admin recall and accountability, BLP policy, flagged revisions). The problem with the current approach is:
 * that it is nearly impossible to demonstrate a 70%ish agreement for anything
 * even where there's a consensus that the status-quo is unacceptable, getting people to agree when there are multiple possible alternatives is nearly impossible
 * it is far too easy to prevent a change by arguing that's no consensus - even when those opposing may simply be a vocal minority
 * discussion fails because just when some progress is being made, new participants can join who have not read the screeds of previous discussion and they can re-open an argument for some approach that's already been talked out several weeks before

The result is:
 * Arbcom is tempted to fill a vacuum by findings that tend to create new policy - this is disruptive since they have no mandate for this
 * Since policy can be made by changing practice - frustrated admins are tempted to try to change things by direct action - this is also disruptive

Advisory Council on Project Development
A while ago, arbcom tried to establish an Advisory Council on Project Development. This was a body designed to allow for close policy discussion. The community rejected this proposal, mainly for two reasons:
 * 1) It was an appointed body, and thus lacked legitimacy
 * 2) It reported to Arbcom, but Arbcom has no responsibility or mandate for policy development.

Community Advisory Council
What is proposed here is a different sort of Council, one chosen by and wholly answerable to, the community. The Council is designed to complement not replace the Consensus system.

The bases of this proposal are:
 * 1) The Council would be a method of last resort (like arbcom). It can take matters up only where normal community discussion has been tried and failed.
 * 2) The Community must have the final say on policy. The Council ‘’is advisory and can't create policy’’ - it would form advice/recommendations for the Community to consider.
 * 3) Everyone must be able to contribute. All the Council's discussion will be on-wiki and (as with arbcom processes) everyone can comment on the talk pages. (No secret mailing lists or IRC.)
 * 4) The Council would be representative. Unlike arbcom there should not be "oppose" voting, so anyone with significant support could be elected. Arbcom needs to take account of "oppose" because it needs a moderate group that everyone trusts - this Council needs a representative group where everyone can be represented.
 * 5) Members of the Council would have no individual status: no extra tools or rights, no privileged access.
 * 6) The Council would not involve itself in individual content decisions or matter of user conduct. It could only look at the broad process and policy issues that underlie.
 * 7) The Council would be elected for one year at a time. Thus the Community renews its mandate regularly and can vote it off the island.
 * 8) Serving arbitrators should not be members of the Council.

What would happen?


 * 1) If the Community can't agree what to do, but there is obviously long-standing dissatisfaction with the status-quo, editors could petition the Council to take up the issue - giving evidence that there is a general consensus that change is needed and that other community process had been tried and failed.
 * 2) The Council would vote whether to take up the issue (on the basis of whether other community process had been exhausted, and whether they felt the community had a mind to depart from the status-quo)
 * 3) If the Council accepted the case, it would first investigate the issue. It would seek to: 1)define the problem with the status-quo 2) assess the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives.
 * 4) Next the Council would decide (by voting) which of the alternatives (if any) was, in its view, preferable to the status-quo. It would decide either that the status-quo was best or it would choose a "recommended option".
 * 5) Throughout the above process community could offer comments and evidence - the Council shall take these into consideration.
 * 6) If the Council recommends a policy change, the "recommended option" would be submitted to the community for a straight up/down vote. The Community chooses either "Status-quo" or "recommended option", nothing more.
 * 7) If the Community rejects the Council's recommendation, the Council shall be prohibited from returning to the issue for 12 months unless, in the interests of the project, it is instructed to so either by the Arbitration Committee or by Jimbo Wales.

The "straight up/down vote" is lightly to be the controversial bit. However, I'd point out that the Community has control at three stages 1) they elect the Council 2) they approve or disapprove its recommendations 3) Annually, the community has the chance to vote all Council members out.