User talk:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education

Name and scope
I wonder if this group should be called "Education Committee" or "Outreach Committee". It seems that with this guideline "Training of all English Wikipedia ambassadors and education outreach volunteers and non-WMF staff who aren't overseen by any regional education oversight group." there is scope to issue comment on issues which might arise during small events, like informal community Wikipedia gatherings which otherwise have no specific group to address in case of problems. Is this the intent?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   10:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That does sound too broad. Let me see what I can do to narrow that. Pine(talk) 05:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "EdCom" has a very negative connotation, thanks to the fact that ArbCom is presented in a sort of "Supreme Court" style law enforcer. With the level of criticism that has occurred lately, we don't need to assign something a name that would simply give people an inaccurate impression of it. Perhaps something that can't be shortened in a similar manner would yield a more positive reception, like "Board of Education". Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Board of Education" sounds ok. I'll make that change. Pine(talk) 05:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any real opinion about what the name is, but Rob, could you please clarify -- on this and other questions -- what role are you speaking from? It seems very strange, and rather chilling, to me that the Wikimedia Foundation would take a position on the name of a community-initiated entity. I'm not sure how to interpret what I'm reading here. Why would the WMF or the GEP be taking a position on the name, or on the length of the election, etc.? Is that really the best use of staff resources? I hope you will reconsider, this is a very strange kind of comment to see. -Pete (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, Pete. The programs run in the U.S., Canada, India, Brazil, and Cairo are initiated by, and currently all run from the Foundation. Setting up this proposed board would imply the programs in the U.S., Canada, and possibly India, as well as any other WEP programs the Foundation chooses to launch on the English Wikipedia, would be subject to the board's rulings. That said, the Foundation is definitely a stakeholder here if this movement is started. Also, you might note my job title and description justify my allotment of staff time to participating in WEP-related discussions: Global Education Program Online Communications Contractor. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Rob, I'm sorry -- I expressed myself very poorly above. I of course was aware of your position, and wasn't questioning your use of time within your position.


 * My concern (apparently justified) is about the more general choice of the Foundation to criticize the details of a proposal that hasn't yet had the chance to generate much community discussion. This seems out of keeping with what I generally understand to be the Foundation's understanding of its proper role in consensus-building processes, and also a major departure from the goal we had from the beginning with the Public Policy Initiative, to create an environment in which Wikipedians would want to take on the challenges of engaging with universities on their own, without prompting from the Foundation.


 * I'm having a hard time understanding where the Foundation is coming from on this. -Pete (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Normally I wait to comment on drafts like these until they're moved out of the draft phase, but Pine actually sent us an email indicating he'd appreciate comments on what is written in this proposal. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

About the names "Education Committee" and "Board of Education": I had thought about “Board of Education” as a name also before Bob suggested it. I first proposed the name “Education Committee” since we already have an Arbitration Committee so the authority comparison would be clear to Wikipedians, and personally I have a generally positive opinion of our current ArbCom's competence and good faith. However, I think for professors and students who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, the name “Board of Education” is the better title because the Board will do more than enforce standards, it will also be a place for dialogue and will help with lots of personnel issues in the education program, encourage best practices and facilitate communication among different education groups, and non-Wikipedians are more likely to have preconceptions for what a “board of education” does from their school experiences that give them a reasonably good idea of what the Wikipedia Board of Education will do. As with everything in this draft, this is still open for change and everyone is still welcome to comment. Pine(talk) 22:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Who does metric advertising
This guideline "Maintaining awareness of Education Program metrics for English Wikipedia." is a big commitment and I would presume it requires asking WMF staff to compile metrics. If that is the case then I see no reason why WMF should not also be the ones to raise awareness of them. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   10:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. "Maintaining awareness" means that committee members should maintain personal awareness of education metrics. It doesn't mean tracking and publishing metrics is the job of this committee. I'll try to make that clearer. Pine(talk) 05:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oversight when no other group has oversight
You wrote "EdCom isn't responsible for directly recruiting, selecting, training, and firing ambassadors who work in an area that is overseen by a regional group. Regional groups and educational organizations have leadership in this area." Would EdCom take responsibility for these things when an area is not overseen by a regional group?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   10:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the idea here is that the primary trainers should be regional groups, but in areas where there aren't regional groups or if a regional group can't handle the job then EdCom would be primary. This is not saying that EdCom should be expected to fulfill all requests for training, just that EdCom will do what it can, especially in cases where there isn't a regional group. Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 05:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that BOE isn't required to support groups that aren't overseen by a regional group. If BOE wants to say that "no one will be given the title of ambassador if they aren't affiliated with a chapter or regional group," BOE can do that. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 09:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A few misconceptions
Still reading this proposal; I'll leave more comments when I'm done. I'm noticing a few key misconceptions here; to clarify, I'm posting the facts here rather than restating the fallacies:


 * The Steering Committee in its most recent form wasn't responsible for overseeing anything except the online ambassador management and recruitment; as a result, the current status of online ambassador recruitment and management is largely unknown.
 * The programs in the U.S. and Canada, the pilots in Cairo and Brazil, and the second (and first) India pilot, are currently overseen by the Foundation. The Foundation will no longer oversee the U.S. and Canada Education Programs beginning May 2013.
 * The IEP second pilot is overseen by the individuals in the Global Development department at the Foundation and has a team of individuals dedicated to overseeing it and, when the time comes, will seek approval their management.

<span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is that status of those parts of the US program that are outside of the US? I'm thinking of things such as [] ? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Rob, I think that I've fixed the background information to be consistent with your comments here. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 07:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Stuart-- The class you linked to (in New Zealand) is not being supported or monitored by the Foundation, even though the instructor may have added their course back to the list after we removed it, creating confusion. We informed the instructor that the program is only open to American colleges. As Puerto Rico is officially a territory of the United States, they are included within the region that includes New York. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing evidence of them being removed from any list or the instructor being informed, but that's largely beside the point, given that the course pages are still present and active as sub-pages of United_States_Education_Program, making them part of United_States_Education_Program as far as the rest of Wikipedia is concerned. Even more annoying is the fact that I'm seeing no effort to put them in touch with people outside the program who could help them, a note to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand, New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board or contact with Wikimedia Australia (the applicable branch of the WMF) would almost certainly have found them a local editor to work with them in an ambassadorial role (officially or unofficially). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Stuart. I tried connecting with the prof (via email) to talk about trying to engage with the local community. She was very displeased that she could not join the current US program, as she is American and has worked with US universities. She has been unresponsive since that communication, when I gave her tips to move to the Schools and Universities page. Honestly, now that it's toward the end of our term, I don't mind just moving her over there myself, so it's less confusing to others about her participation with Wikipedia. I was hoping she would be more willing to work with the NZ folks and didn't want to burn the bridge with her, as she was intent on using Wikipedia in the classroom either way. Sorry for the confusion. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Election
One month is a VERY long time for voting on Wikipedia. Consider WP:RfA, which lasts for one week, and is said to be the most stressful event in a Wikipedian's entire lifetime. I can't imagine this process being any less stressful than RfA. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there will be as intense a level of community review for Board of Education nominations as there is for RFA, and leaving the nominations open longer gives more people an opportunity for comment. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 05:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership
Okay, so I see a lot of rules here. What incentive is there for an education program to become a member of the Education Committee? Also-- it would seem we're mixing two concepts here, the joining of programs and the overseeing of them.

You might also want to take a look at an existing proposal: outreach:Wikimedia Education Cooperative. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify your comment? I'm not sure what you mean by saying, "for an education program to become a member of the Education Committee." The only members of the Education Committee will be people who are selected to serve on it by the community. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, never mind. I had misread the "Membership" section; it applies to people on the board, not programs as a whole. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

your box
Hi,

I see someone is proposing another draft on outreach (above) for the Education Program. To me that's just more links to try to keep track of. I don't really understand what's going on. To me it seems like all the initiative and "push" is coming from WMF, but they want to wash their hands of the Education Program. I hate to be pessimistic, but the program is really complicated and requires a lot of work for those who become part of it. I can't see possibly how you'll get enough editors from the community to join – especially when proposals are on outreach or other new places and the community is not consulted. It's not inviting to the community.

My two cents: the wikipedia community has to own this program if it's going to work. WMF has massively alienated editors here when they deep-sixed the NNP thing against the community's wishes. After all that hubbub they engaged a "community liaison", Okeyes (WMF) (talk), to run interference between the community and the WMF developers regarding their pet tools, and people became more cooperative. See New Page Triage (WP:NPT) and Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. Okeyes posts here (not only on outreach) and is really responsive and doesn't shoot down people because they criticize something. He holds regular office hours, sends out newsletters and always responds immediately on his talk page. He's really an outreach person and he's dispelling the bad feeling from the community that WMF doesn't care that the NPP incident created. His position is only for six month, but he'll probably be able to get community support for those new tools.

WMF needs to supply a liaison person like him if they want this Education Program to happen, at the very least. (You'd be a good person as you seem friendly and open minded.) In fact, considering how massive the job is, they need several liaison people.

I admire your patience in trying to work through all this. The community here en:wp has to feel some ownership of the Education Program or they will continue to resent the work it creates for them. (This is what I think.) Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathew, thanks for posting.
 * I think there are big differences between what I'm drafting and the outreach group that Rob mentioned. The other group looks like it's mostly about outreach and applies to all language Wikipedias. My proposal is only for English Wikipedia and is more about oversight and coordination for all education projects on English Wikipedia. My proposal supports the idea that direct engagement with universities, students, professors, and ambassadors for English Wikipedia should be led by regional groups like the chapters or the US and Canada Education Working Group.
 * I agree with your comment that the tangle of education programs on Wikipedia is very complicated. I envision the group that I'm proposing being helpful in untangling the lines and helping with clarity and coordination across English Wikipedia. I welcome your suggestions.
 * Another user also commented about a lack of trust between WMF and the English Wikipedia community. The group that I propose would be very clearly led by community members. WMF didn't ask me to create this proposal and I don't know what their official position on it will be. My guess is that they will like this idea after they think about it carefully, but it's not their idea and they aren't in charge of it, which I hope and expect that they will welcome.
 * I am hoping that the group that I propose will appeal to enough people in the education community like ambassadors, professors, and college support staff that they will see its value and want to join. Appealing to their selfishness, participation in this group would be good for their resumes.
 * I welcome your comments and suggestions.
 * <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 07:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathew, with respect to your concern regarding liaising with this program, LiAnna serves the general public, and I serve the Wikipedia community. As you know, I was brought on at the beginning of March. I, not unlike yourself, have a massive watchlist on several wikis in order to keep up with the program's activity. If there's a particular area where you'd like my input, please let me know and I'll do my best to respond. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rob Schnautz (WMF), what I meant by bringing up the Okeyes (WMF) example was that he was hired to complete a specific task, i.e. to get the community involved in the development of the New Page Triage (WP:NPT) and the Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. So his task was clear to us. Since he is the point man, the go-to guy. It's very easy to get information from him. He has the two "tool" talk pages, his newsletters and holds "office hours on IRC chat. And email, plus he responds readily and to the point on his talk page. There's no confusion. Everyone knows what's going on. If he can't give a direct answer, he might say something like "I have no control over that; I'll ask the developers if your proposal is possible and get back to you." He is really clear about what he can do and what is out of his hands (up to the developers or WMF or technically not feasible etc.).
 * I appreciate that you and Ldavis (WMF) are community liaison people, but I only learned about you recently and I'm not sure what sorts of things you cover or what it would be appropriate to contact you or Ldavis (WMF) about. I found out accidentally about Dennis (WMF) – or what ever his name is – because I got involved with copyvio issues and I knew Moonriddengirl handled that kind of stuff, etc. That's the first I learned of {WMF) editors around.
 * My big beef (which I've gotten over) was a problem with an Online Ambassador. And I kept being told, every time I asked that "it was being handled" by the Steering Committee. There was zero transparency, and I even had a post removed and got very bad vibs for asking questions from some of editors (I don't know what, if any, positions they held in  the Education Program). So I am very surprised (and relieved) to read above: "The Steering Committee in its most recent form wasn't responsible for overseeing anything except the online ambassador management and recruitment; as a result, the current status of online ambassador recruitment and management is largely unknown."
 * So I welcome Pine's transparency and your acknowledgment (from my point of view) of reality, and I hope that this all works out. I know that some editors keep lists of course articles in their sandbox with the goal of fixing them all up. So there still is a reservoir of good will among some community editors to protect wikipedia from these "students".
 * I'm posting here with the best of intentions and not to harm anyone. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathew or anyone else who'd like to comment, on the topic of transparency, I want to be clear that I don't think it's realistic for absolutely everything that the proposed Board of Education will do will be public. I would welcome specific suggestions about how to properly balance transparency and confidentiality for the Board of Education around such issues as allegations against a board member or ambassador that they are uncivil, incompetent, or have violated standards in some serious way. One way that I have tried to address this problem is by making provisions for recall of a board member by the community, which would be a public vote in which any registered editor could participate. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the draft to say, "Every vote taken internally by the Board for final action on any topic must be made public within two weeks, although the reasons and deliberations may be kept confidential if the vote concerns allegations against a specific person or group of people." What do you think? <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 07:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing anything in the Responsibilities that requires anything to be done in camera. We should be setting an example by doing everything possible on-wiki and in public, using wikipedia processes. Certain wikipedia processes require things to be done in camera, and those rules would still apply, naturally. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Stuartyeates,
 * Can you be more specific about which Wikipedia processes "require things to be done in camera"? BOE elections and any recall votes will definitely be public, but do you know of any other Wikipedia policies that currently require specific processes to be done in camera?
 * The best example I can think of is the portions of the OTRS which don't seem to be widely accessible. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that transparency is a generally a good thing, and I think that it should be the default for most things that BOE does. However, I don't expect every individual IRC or Skype conversation to be documented, and there may be good reason for confidentiality with certain kinds of investigations, so I think that the BOE should maximize its transparency but I don't expect absolutely everything to be public. I will try to draft language that maximizes transparency but provides for confidentiality in limited circumstances. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the massive numbers of different pages that may (or may not) be associated with the Education Program (here and on Outreach and who knows where else), my view is that they all should be transparent, unless you can give a rationale otherwise. If I weren't so tired of the whole thing, I'd round up the pages I know about, and try to figure out what new ones have been created. (Where is the "Ambassador recall" page, for example? It used to exist if an editor was motivated enough to go through contributions etc. to find it.) Where is the page where they "discussed" my complaint? I know it happened somewhere because the person I complained about said so. Or is it all over IRC and therefore not transparent? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathew, I agree with you that "they all should be transparent, unless you can give a rationale otherwise". My intention is to make those rationales very specific and limited. It is also my intention to have the Board pages be sufficiently organized that things don't mysteriously disappear or get lost easily. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 20:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've posted a long subsection on transparency, confidentiality, and voting. Comments are welcome! <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 09:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

General take
Pine, I'm really happy to see this proposal. Without getting into the specifics -- which I think you are probably more tuned into than I am, at this point -- the idea of a community-led group to guide engagement with university programs seems like something whose time has come. I wish you well with this, and will try to help in whatever ways I can. -Pete (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your support, Pete. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 07:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a well though out proposal it is something I would support. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments on the view from the front lines
I would like to make sure that this proposed Board of Education is valuable to front-line professors, ambassadors, and students. It could become a top-heavy structure with lots of reports and discussions but few tangible benefits to those on the front lines. Much of the structure as I've described it so far is about preventing the kinds of problems that have happened up to this point in Wikipedia education programs, but can the Board of Education also be useful in the sense of helping people who are on the front lines and making them feel valuable, supported, and engaged? Please comment. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add to the nomination paragraph "Nominees are encouraged to summarize any work they have done as at AfC, #wikipedia-en-help, WP:WC, and in other outreach and new-user fora as part of their nomination." This both encourages people experienced in these to put their names forward and signals an intention to work positively with them. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. The page is starting to get so full of details that I may start branching things into separate pages. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ with minor tweaking. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please continue commenting. How can the Board of Education be useful in the sense of helping people who are on the front lines and making them feel valuable, supported, and engaged? <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 11:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Terms for board members
What does everyone think is better, one year, two years, or until someone resigns or is recalled? I am starting to think that a two year term would be ok because any bad board member would be subject to a recall process, and there are ways for any member who wants to resign or take a WikiBreak to do so. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 11:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say a year-long term would give an individual a chance to get the hang of things during one semester and prove their value the next semester; by the end of the year we'd be able to give a fair evaluation of whether someone is serving well, and if they aren't performing as well as people would like them to, you'd be able to still save them the embarrassment of recall by letting them finish their term and not getting reelected. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Logo
Here's a draft logo. Comments welcome.

<span style="font-size:1.0em; height: 100px; line-height: 20px; font-family: Helvetica, Impact, sans-serif;"> The English Wikipedia

<span style="font-size:2.5em; font-weight: bold; height: 100px; line-height: 20px; font-weight: bold; font-family: Helvetica, Impact, sans-serif;"> Board of Education

<span style="font-size:1.0em; height: 100px; line-height: 25px; font-family: Helvetica, Impact, sans-serif;"> Engaging students, educators, and the Wikipedia community

<b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be more practical to have something that's round / or squarish that we can be used more easily in banner templetes. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What if I added a rectangle border to this? <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 11:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess so. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this for a small version with a border? It can be scaled smaller as shown below. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 21:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)





All of these seem suitably friendly and respectable. I like the color and the presentation.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   14:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Project timeline
I've had a few people ask me about timing and process for this proposal. Here's my plan.


 * Working draft posted. ✅
 * Requests for comment from a limited number of people who've been involved in relevant programs
 * Ambassador program ✅
 * WMF education staff ✅
 * Administrators ✅
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Chapters
 * Move the working draft out of user:Pine/sandbox to user:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education ✅
 * Post a working draft of all major project pages based on the working draft of the RFC ❌
 * Respond to comments on the working draft of major project pages ❌
 * Formal Request for Comment from the community ❌
 * Formal Request for Comment concludes ❌
 * Move pages to mainspace Board of Education ❌
 * Board elections begin ❌
 * Elected board members begin work ❌

<b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 22:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above is subject to change, of course. I'm thinking about requesting comments from a few email lists that are related to education programs to ask for comments before the formal RFC. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After BOE members are elected, I expect them to have plenty of work to do. The first academic year in 2012-2013 may be a bit rough because BOE will be developing policies at the same time that courses are ongoing. Of course, what BOE chooses to do will depend on who's elected, how many people are elected, how much time they have, and what their priorities are. I expect that BOE's second year in 2013-2014 should be smoother. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the possible dates from the list above because there may be opportunities for coordination between the North American Education Working Group and this proposal for the BOE, and the timing of this coordination is not yet known. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 23:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination percentage
I have increased the proposed percentage of positive votes that a nominee must receive to become a BOE member from 60% to 2/3. I have three reasons for this change. Comments on this change are welcome. If anyone feels that the percentage should be higher or lower, now is a good time to comment. Thanks, <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A 2/3 standard is more similar to RFA.
 * I realized that if there were 10 votes, then with a 60% standard, a single vote is the difference between 50% and 60%. Moving the standard to 2/3 would mean that if there are 10 votes then a majority plus two is required, which shows a clearer consensus.
 * I have heard a few people comment that the BOE seems to have "a lot of power" so it seems to me that with the impression of "a lot of power" then a higher vote percentage is a good thing.
 * I support this proposal.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

May 3
Here are a few of the more significant recent changes to this document:


 * An increase from 60% to 2/3 for a nominee to pass an election. See the section above for the explanation.
 * A new paragraph about academic dishonesty.
 * A new paragraph about the standards for voting consensus among BOE members.
 * BOE authorities for civility policies and enforcement.
 * Clarification that BOE isn't mandated to allow participation in Wikipedia Education Programs from a university that doesn't a have a chapter or local education oversight group that is "responsible" for WEP at that university.
 * To avoid ambiguity about what the "Wikipedia Talk" qualification means for BOE nominees, I've added minimal separate requirements for Article Talk and User Talk.

Comments on these changes are welcome! <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 09:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to add some more links both to wiki pages / policies / processes mentioned and to (or similar) as somewhere to check one's edit counts. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When I get around to drafting the project pages then I do plan to include links such as in relevant places. Thanks for the reminder. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk)  18:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

May 4
<b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 09:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Elections are to be closed by Bureaucrats.
 * Mention that BOE won't oversee GLAM unless the community votes to expand BOE's oversight role
 * Added a big subsection on voting, confidentiality, and transparency.

May 6

 * Arbiter Courcelles made a comment on his talk page that the proposal as written could have issues with Privacy Policy and Checkuser Policy. I made a clarification that I hope fixes those issues. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 06:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

May 15

 * I will be having a voice meeting with WMF to discuss the proposal this week. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 23:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

May 28
<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 07:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I had a phone conversation with WMF. One point where I agree with their feedback is that the draft could be made to focus more on the positive goals and abilities that BOE would have. I will make edits to do this if this BOE draft proposal continues to go forward. For the moment, this draft proposal is paused.
 * I think that there may be opportunities for coordination of the BOE proposal with the North American Working Group.
 * Rob Schnautz (WMF) seems to be addressing a number of tasks that I thought that BOE would be needed to address. I think one of the reasons people are interested in BOE is that the coordination would be done primarily by community elected BOE members and not by WMF staff, or by crowdsourcing and decentralizing roles like selecting ambassadors. However if the community is satisfied with the status quo then BOE can stay on hold indefinitely until people think that BOE is a better alternative.
 * This proposal is on hold for the immediate future, but I may continue to edit the BOE draft and discussion is still welcome on this talk page.
 * To be clear, I'm not handling all the issues you identified (and actually I'm not sure which ones you addressed I am handling even!)-- the work you saw from me last week on en: and will probably see this week on outreach: is simply an attempt to organize and update the pages that are directly related to the WMF's extension of the WEP. Hopefully the new strategy for organization will prevent future clutter, duplication, and obsolescence. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any particular points on this proposal for which I should seek comment on at Wikimania? What would be the next step in developing this? Is there any particular action which a new person just hearing about this project might take?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply making people aware that this proposal is being discussed is helpful. I think it would be good to let people know that this proposal is for a more centralized way of coordinating, assisting, and managing on-wiki education activity here on English Wikipedia. I think people should know that BOE members would be elected from the community, and BOE would have a broad scope of leadership regarding education activity here on English Wikipedia. I also think people should understand that this is currently a draft that is an option for the community to consider as an alternative to the current system of decision making which in practice often has WMF in the leadership role and then some decentralized decision making in a wide variety of education activities. If the community shows significant interest in moving away from the current WMF plus decentralization system and wanting to move towards the more centralized BOE approach then please express support here on the talk page so that I get a sense of how many people think BOE is a better alternative to the current system. If people are happy with the current system and don't want a centralized BOE then they should say that here on the talk page also. Thanks for your interest in this proposal, Bluerasberry. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 07:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow, June 2
I will briefly discuss BOE during the the North American Education Working Group meeting on Saturday, June 2, on IRC. See here for the full agenda, time and IRC channel. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 20:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding the appearance of usurpation
Hi Pine; just to make sure this doesn't look like usurpation, I strongly advise you request input from all the parties that would be affected by the BOE-- any known education project (established or in planning) that is known to or expected to operate on the English Wikipedia.

Here are a few that come to mind editing on the English Wikipedia; I advise scraping around and seeing if you can't come up with more:
 * WP:School and university projects
 * WP:ACADEMICAL
 * Wikimedia U.K. Education projects
 * Wikimedia Mexico (See wmmx:Portada:Noticias anteriores; if I knew Spanish I'd give you a better link!)

I'll be presenting your proposal to the Foundation's Wikipedia Education Program team soon.

Thanks! <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've posted requests for comment at the first three. Can someone please find a link to the right page at Wikimedia Mexico and post it here? Thanks. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 23:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now posted on the talk pages for the Canada Education Program and United States Education Program. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 08:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now posted requests for comments from the DC and NYC chapters on Meta. I can't log into the Canadian chapter's external website. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments requested from the UK chapter on their website, and I sent an email to the AU chapter.<b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 10:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Canada isn't involved with it; the WMF runs that one. <span style="font-family:linux libertine o, times; font-variant:small-caps">Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chapters
I'd strongly oppose having Chapters involved in overseeing programs. Recruiting and organising training, so long as they aren't soley responsible for this (even within a particular region), seems fine. But overseeing the programs brings them into a closer relationship with Wikipedia content, and the defence of the Chapters has been that they are not responsible in any way for WP content or actions that occur on WP. Breaking that down in some way seems to be unwise. (The Chapters tend to train people and act to facilitate content development, but if someone has a complaint about WP content it is immediatly referred to OTRS, and never handled by the Chapter directly - oversight of content generation in any form would be a problem). - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate a little more clarification about your concern. BOE's scope would include overseeing on-wiki education program activity. BOE doesn't have the ability to observe and supervise classroom interactions the way that local education groups and class professors could. I guess I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by a chapter "overseeing" a program. Do you mean having the ability to intervene if there's a problem with an ambassador? If I'm understanding your concern correctly, you believe that problems in regards to on-wiki content or actions should be addressed exclusively by BOE or other on-wiki people like administrators, and not by chapters. Is that right? <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 08:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry for taking a whileto get back to you on this. :) I guess my concern is that there seems to be a lot of responsibilities being given to chapters in the proposal. But yes, I'm wary of involving Chapters too much in this process, especially to the point where they have control in any way over content, or have a say in blocking users or removing people from the program. The proposal as it stands seems to have a large role for the chapters, which is something that I'm very uncomfortable with. I'd ratehr see this as either a WMF initiative or something conducted by the WP community, without involving Chapters in any particular way. I'm thinking mroe about the proposal as a whole, though, so I hope to get back to you with better suggestions than this one concern. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify a few things.
 * I'm not proposing that chapters have a role in blocking users any more than BOE could do that. BOE could make referrals to administrators with a request to block, but BOE itself won't be imposing that kind of block. BOE's blocks would likely be limited to unapproved education programs that cause problems, or approved education programs that start to cause significant problems. BOE could implement policies which might indirectly be used as grounds for a block, such as a civility policy within the scope of BOE's own talk pages, but I don't foresee that BOE itself would be in a position to order a block of an individual user.
 * I think that WMF is currently reviewing this proposal and discussing their position on it. I agree that the proposal probably would work better and be more likely to be implemented if WMF decides to support it.
 * To the extent that chapters do off-wiki activity within the WEP, such as involvement with campus ambassadors, chapters are already involved. I think that the overlap between chapters and BOE would be limited to decisions about who gets to call themselves an ambassador and the on-wiki scope of ambassador responsibilities. I did talk about chapters and local groups a lot in the draft but I can reconsider the emphasis on these groups if you think that I've overemphasized their roles.
 * I hope that those replies help. My own thoughts aren't set in stone and I welcome further comments. Thanks! <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 11:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Benefits
Pine, could you summarize briefly what you see as the benefits of this approach? There's clearly a cost -- some of the procedures and meetings you outline would consume a lot of Wikipedian labour. What do you see as a benefit achievable with this structure that cannot be obtained with a simpler structure? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, Thanks for your question.
 * A lot of this proposal is about preventing recurrences of problems that the Education Program has experienced and/or "caused" here on English Wikipedia.
 * WMF's own consultant's report on the IEP shows that there were serious problems in the planning and execution of the IEP. IEP participants introduced so many copyright violations that an administrator blocked a university's IP, there were communication difficulties between the English Wikipedia community and WMF, and a "small minority" of participants created sockpupets. The consultant's report says, "One global administrator estimated that the total impact on the community was between 2,000 and 3,000 hours. The Foundation hasn't yet found a good way of systematically measuring the impact, but it acknowledges that the impact was enormous." The purpose of giving BOE a role in the authority regarding the approval or shutdown of significant WEP programs on English Wikipedia is to provide the English Wikipedia community, through its representatives on the WEP, a role in the approval and oversight of these programs. Hopefully by having the BOE involved in the approval of a program, the BOE will verify that the planning of future programs doesn't repeat the problems that happened with the IEP. If BOE feels that a program has shortcomings in the program's planning, then BOE can withhold approval of a program until those problems are addressed.
 * The previous lack of a clearly designated place for editors to voice concerns about the competence or actions of ambassadors and Steering Committee members resulted in at least one editor seeming to feel that their concerns were not being addressed, and the user posted his concerns in multiple places.
 * The Steering Committee's deliberations and actions could seem opaque and slow. These seemed to contribute to editor frustration when a concern was brought to the Steering Committee. The BOE rules on confidentiality and transparency are far more public and specific.
 * The community, through its representatives on BOE, will have leadership on WEP programs. Up to this point leadership seems to have been done largely by WMF. WMF has stated its goal of handing off responsibility for the US and Canadian WEP programs, but there is no community organization that has a coordinating role for all WEP programs on English Wikipedia. BOE fills that gap and it's a community organization, not a WMF organization.
 * BOE members are clearly accountable to the community, not WMF. If the community feels that it has not been adequately served by any one or more BOE members, the community can recall those members or refuse to reelect them when their terms expire. On the other hand, if the community feels that someone who currently isn't a member of BOE would do a good job as a BOE member, then the individual and the community can begin the nomination process at any time.
 * Because the Steering Committee has disbanded, there is currently no one clearly "in charge" of online ambassadors. Also, there is currently no single organization that coordinates selection, training, standards, and assignments for ambassadors across all of English Wikipedia. BOE will fill the gap. BOE may have a role in making sure that there are basic standards and training for all ambassadors on English Wikipedia. I have heard that there have been complaints about the vagueness of expectations and lack of prerequisite training for ambassadors, and BOE would be in a position to address those issues.
 * BOE would have the ability to respond authoritatively to questions and issues that are posted to the Education Noticeboard, which currently has "no one in charge".
 * BOE would be responsible for having clearly designated and adequately organized places for discussing subjects that are relevant to the Wikipedia Education Program. Topics might include the effectiveness of WEP classes, training for ambassadors and professors, best practices for recruiting professors and ambassadors into the program, developing online and offline materials that introduce students in WEP programs to Wikipedia, and discussion of metrics for WEP programs. BOE wouldn't necessarily set policies in all of these areas but BOE would be in a good position to facilitate discussion among the many interested participants including ambassadors, professors, students, WMF, and chapters.
 * Regarding simplicity, I think that we had simplicity with the old Steering Committee, but the simple system proved to be vague, opaque, slow, and not strongly accountable to the community. Also, unless the BOE or something like it is created, there will be no community organization that has an authoritative role in approving significant new WEP programs.


 * Does that help to answer your question? If you can think of ways to simplify what I've proposed while maintaining the benefits, I am absolutely ready to listen to comments and suggestions.


 * Thanks,
 * <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 02:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of information is here, but thanks especially for your first point and its subpoints about this project being a reaction to problems which have already happened. This is not an exercise in organization; it is a practical response to real problems which happened in previous field tests.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Exemption, chapter problems, why I will NOT support this
Until such a time that Wikimedia Foundation conducts a thorough analysis of disruption that proves classrooms outside India, Canada and the United States are causing the same level disruption, I will actively and vigorously campaign against this because it is a form of punitive punishment to everyone else for the actions of a few educators. Things should NOT be punitive. I will also oppose this vigorously and actively because it will do one of the two: 1) Undermine the role of chapters by taking away funding from them to do educational work inside their own countries and give regional leadership positions to those who might be in active opposition to local efforts that will undermine chapter efforts. 2) It will burden chapters by creating an out of process process that ALL chapters will be subject to. I cannot see how this can at all work unless this is taken to meta because it is highly inappropriate at its current locations. While I admire Pine's efforts here and might otherwise be keen to support such a project, I do not think Pine has the chapter connections, the WMF connections, the ArbCom connections for Pine to be politically viable inside the community to successfully take this on. Pine can do many, many great things but I don't think Pine has the contacts and leadership to pull it off. This means this will largely need to be handed off entirely to some one else. Who that is is completely unclear. I also doubt Pine has the educational credentials and educational contacts to pull this off from an outside sense. (If Pine had demonstrated many university contacts and an ability to organise there, I might be more sympathetic to Pine's leadership problems.)

Things need to be fixed but this is absolutely not the solution. I'd rather a WMF mediated solution than this.--LauraHale (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Laura, I'll respond with a few points.
 * I think that it would be better if BOE has no involvement in funding issues. The draft already says that BOE's role doesn't include funding.
 * If this needs to go to Meta, I'm happy to take it there to get input.
 * This may be my proposal, but BOE isn't "about" me, my credentials, or my political contacts. If the community approves BOE then BOE will be the community's organization. Also, even if the community approves BOE, that doesn't mean that they'll elect me to be on BOE. As far as the process is concerned, if it would be better that WMF or someone with more significant political connections becomes the sponsor of the BOE proposal, that's ok with me provided that they preserve the focus on having representatives of the community be clearly the leaders of BOE and that the leadership of oversight for Wikipedia Education Programs clearly stays with editors who are elected by the community.
 * I don't believe that the people who are elected to BOE will want to burden chapters. I hope that they would want to help chapters with their outreach efforts within the scope of BOE's role. I believe that BOE's benefits to the English Wikipedia community would outweigh the costs.
 * I have tried to be clear that BOE would have a very different role than ArbCom. The overlap should be minimal. ArbCom isn't involved in approving education programs or facilitating discussion about standards for ambassadors, and WEP wouldn't typically be in the business of finding sockpuppets and dealing with article edit wars.
 * BOE is not designed as a "punitive" proposal. It is designed to coordinate WEP programs, develop some consistent standards and training where it thinks best, facilitate communication, review proposals for major new education initiatives, and address on-wiki problems as needed within the scope of WEP. I hope that BOE members will put much of their emphasis on using their influence to develop and facilitate WEP in a way that the community finds beneficial.
 * <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 06:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No funding involvement means this is a toothless because systematic problems/changes CANNOT be made funding is required in some cases. You need to get in person trainers in some cases, develop training materials, supply funding materials.  If this is not going to be a component, then we have ArbCom and other community processes, which makes this redundant.
 * When I said it needs to go to meta, what I mean is: English Wikipedia is completely inappropriate. If you try to propose it here, I will try to get it killed as being out of process here.  You CANNOT create chapter obligations on English Wikipedia.  Writing in chapters here demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of how things work.  If you DO take this to meta, your proposal has no standing here as English Wikipedia often rejects things done on meta.  I can't see how you resolve this.
 * This is absolutely about you. Some onew would need to actually implement it.  If not you, say EXACTLY WHO would be implementing this.
 * BOE is not designed in your opinion to be punative but to me it strikes me as BLATANTLY punative to the world wide community for problems created by the USA, Canada and Indian programmes. I will assume good faith that you didn't intend it to be this way but until I see some evidence that blatant and widespread disruption is coming from chapter organised education programs outside those areas, I can't see a better arguement. You're over reaching and I've yet to see any evidence of problems outside these areas.

While at it, I will say I find it INCREDIBLY annoying that you repeatedly solicited my opinion via IRC and then up and ignored it, then suggested I respond on wiki. It demonstrates to me that you're not ready to run this programme and you haven't fully thought it through. I vented my spleen. I did my draft and I was wise enough to realise it wouldn't be successful but it was a nice exercise in stress relief. Success is contingent upon community support. It requires WMF leadership. It requires chapter support for training, etc. This proposal requires ArbCom support and endorsement. I don't see you having it any more than I had it. (And my proposal would have been much more limited in scope and, when I calmed down, I realised it was never going to fly.) I'd rather get behind a WMF mediated solution as they have the tools to be more successful. --LauraHale (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try to respond to each of these points.
 * "* No funding involvement means this is a toothless because systematic problems/changes CANNOT be made funding is required in some cases. You need to get in person trainers in some cases, develop training materials, supply funding materials.  If this is not going to be a component, then we have ArbCom and other community processes, which makes this redundant."
 * Development of materials, if the BOE decides to do that, can be done at no cost on-wiki for the materials which BOE designs. WMF, chapters, and others are free to design and produce materials, so long as they are reasonably accurate. Regarding ArbCom and other community processes, I maintain the view that ArbCom's mandate doesn't extend to the types of decisions that BOE will be in a position to make.
 * "* When I said it needs to go to meta, what I mean is: English Wikipedia is completely inappropriate. If you try to propose it here, I will try to get it killed as being out of process here.  You CANNOT create chapter obligations on English Wikipedia.  Writing in chapters here demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of how things work.  If you DO take this to meta, your proposal has no standing here as English Wikipedia often rejects things done on meta.  I can't see how you resolve this."
 * I think that I partly agree with you. BOE is not in a position to tell chapters what to do off wiki. However, see the comment above about the role of chapters in supervising on-wiki activity. BOE would oversee and coordinate the on-wiki activity within the scope of the WEP, such as on-wiki ambassador activity. This is especially important if chapters don't want that role, which is what I believe that Bilby is saying, because if chapters don't want the role then this is a current "no one in charge" problem where BOE can be useful by filling the gap. If I am misunderstanding your concern, please correct me.
 * "* This is absolutely about you. Some onew would need to actually implement it.  If not you, say EXACTLY WHO would be implementing this."
 * If the RFC passes, then meaningful implementation would be done by the first people who are elected to BOE. I may or may not be one of them. The community will get to decide.
 * "* BOE is not designed in your opinion to be punative but to me it strikes me as BLATANTLY punative to the world wide community for problems created by the USA, Canada and Indian programmes. I will assume good faith that you didn't intend it to be this way but until I see some evidence that blatant and widespread disruption is coming from chapter organised education programs outside those areas, I can't see a better arguement. You're over reaching and I've yet to see any evidence of problems outside these areas. "
 * I will agree to disagree with you on on the point about this being punative.
 * "While at it, I will say I find it INCREDIBLY annoying that you repeatedly solicited my opinion via IRC and then up and ignored it, then suggested I respond on wiki. It demonstrates to me that you're not ready to run this programme and you haven't fully thought it through. I vented my spleen. I did my draft and I was wise enough to realise it wouldn't be successful but it was a nice exercise in stress relief.  Success is contingent upon community support.  It requires WMF leadership.  It requires chapter support for training, etc.  This proposal requires ArbCom support and endorsement. I don't see you having it any more than I had it.  (And my proposal would have been much more limited in scope and, when I calmed down, I realised it was never going to fly.)  I'd rather get behind a WMF mediated solution as they have the tools to be more successful. --LauraHale (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * I take your concerns seriously and I encourage everyone to post comments here in public, including concerns and questions. I may respectfully disagree with you, and I think that you may have accidentally mistaken my disagreement as a sign that I was ignoring your criticisms. I encourage good faith discussion and criticism here. Regarding ArbCom, I will appreciate comments from arbiters and I have already asked some of them for comment, but it is my view that they are not in a position to approve or disapprove this because the basis for BOE's legitimacy will be community consensus, the same type of community consent that forms the legitimacy for ArbCom. BOE and Arbcom should have little overlap most of the time, and I agree with Arbiter Courcelles' comment on this point. Regarding WMF, I agree that having WMF support for this proposal would make it more likely to be implemented. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 11:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate user:LauraHale's input on this and hope that this user's criticism is thoughtfully considered.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

General comments
Hi! It is really good to see this proposed - we need this sort of discussion, and it is great to see it so out in the open. :)

However, I don't think that this is the right model at the moment. The problem is that what is proposed here is very much a top-down model of management. A committee is to be formed, (elected), and they are then responsible for the operations of the program. It seems that their key roles are to determine if they need to stop courses which are damaging to Wikipedia, select and remove Ambassadors, establishing stricter behavioural policies for some groups than Wikipedia's norm, ordering enforcement of their decisions, oversee the Education Noticeboard, and establish new policies. That's a pretty powerful body, with more power within their domain of operation than ArbCom.

The thing is, this seems contrary to the plan of having the community take over the program. This isn't the community taking control of the education program, but a committee elected by the community taking control. And that's not how Wikipedia works. What we generally do is try and encourage the community to reach a decision, in an open and transparent manner on wiki, and only turn to committees (such as ArbCom) when it is clear that the community is unable to manage the particular problem itself. And the committees are greatly restricted in what they can do.

So my problem is that this model is moving almost completely away from community involvement and transparent processes to go down a route that we avoid as much as possible elsewhere on WP. It isn't clear why we need a special committee to decide who is (or is not) an Ambassador, when the community can do that. Similarly it isn't clear that we need a special committee to oversee the Education Noticeboard, or to approve new programs. The time for committees on Wikipedia is when the community is unable to address the concerns themselves. So I'd rather see community processes put in place to handle these tasks first, and use a group like the BOE to step in when those processes are unable to reach consensus. - Bilby (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You make some interesting points. However, we have seen on-wiki problems that have resulted from the "no one (clearly) in charge" issue, a problem that I've mentioned several times and has also been brought up on other talk pages. We currently have no process for approving or removing online ambassadors. There is no process anywhere on Wikipedia that requires any major education initiative to get approval before it starts significant on-wiki activity, and we've seen the kind of enormous damage that a mismanaged program can do and the countless hours of cleanup that volunteers must do to fix problems that are caused by a mismanaged program. If you can think of specific proposals for direct community involvement in the decision making for education program coordination and oversight, I will gladly hear your suggestions, but it seems to me that what's happened so far indicates the need for an (elected) community group who has responsibility for coordination and management. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 07:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems, though, that this is just recreating the old model. The old system had a body responsible for cordination. When issues were raised, the group didn't necessarily respond transperantly (or at least that is my recollection), but they were reponsible for the tasks it seems you have listed here. This new model is an elected rather than appointed body that will also be able to act without transperancy. My concern is that it seems you are recreating the same situation that was in place before, only with some greater powers and different people. I'm not sure how that would avoid the problems of the past. - Bilby (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried very pointedly to deal with the problems that happened with the old Steering Committee, including points about a lack of responsiveness and a lack of transparency. On the responsiveness issue, any BOE member who is slacking can be subjected to recall, BOE is unlikely to be doing most of its business at a once a month IRC meeting, and anyone who wants to nominate themselves for BOE can do so at any time if they meet the requirements listed. On the transparency issue, the BOE proposal requires significant transparency on almost everything that BOE does, and limits exceptions to be specific and narrow. I'm even considering that the exceptions I've proposed can be narrowed further. I am very aware of the problems with the Steering Committee and I am keen to avoid repeating them. Your constructive comments on how to do that further would be welcome. You may want to read some of the comments that I've made elsewhere on this talk page that contrast the BOE with the Steering Committee. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 09:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, I would want to see a model that reflects how Wikipedia works, reflects a model that mirrors the old steering committee system that people have been critical of. When the steering committee passed the program (or passes, as the case may be) to the community, the response of the community need not be to simply recreate a new steering committee. For example, Ambassadors can be appointed or removed through open discussions with the community; responses to Education Noticeboard issues should be handled by the community, rather than a separate committee; and decisions about major programs should go to the community. The role of a committee is to step in when the community isn't able to achieve consensus and a dispute remains, rather than to act as the community's representatives in decision making. That's just not the model we tend to use. - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that what you describe is what may happen if the BOE doesn't come into existence. I think that what you're describing is a bit idealistic, and I would support it if I thought that it would work. I think that the evidence to this point is that the lack of standardization, clarity and consistency has been ok in some places but not in others. For example, it's a good thing when professors on their own initiative encourage their students to contribute to Wikipedia and the students do contribute in constructive ways, but it's a bad thing when an uncoordinated initiative starts submitting lots of poor quality articles for GA reviews and burdening the reviewers for no good reason. I think there are choices about balancing and tradeoffs that need to be made between the models for decision-making and coordination. On your point about disputes, I think that BOE will have a role in dispute resolution and enforcing standards, but I hope that more of its time is spent promoting good practices, coordinating standards, and facilitating communication among different programs and participants. There is a tension between crowdsourcing and centralization, and there are tradeoffs among all choices on that scale. I think that there is a fair question about if BOE would be more work and more complex than the benefits are worth, and I remain open to feedback on this and on where the balance should be between standardization and decentralization. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 23:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We trust the community to select Admins, manage many of the tasks on BLP/N, and respond to problems on AN/I and through RfCs, with a pile of things in between. :) Most importantly, we trust the community to develop policies and guidelines, with only a very small number of WMF ones entering the mix. While I certainly understand and respect where you're coming from, we haven't tried trusting the community with the education program yet. I'd like to do that first, so as to better reflect how WP is intended to work, and only turn to a BOE (or other body) if that proves not to function. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that I am really happy we're having this discussion. I agree that it is a difficult balance - I just tend to defer to putting the balance firmly on the community side first, and seeing how we need to adjust it from there. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And for the BOE proposal, we also trust the community to select BOE members.
 * I think that because of the lack of any coordinating group we effectively ARE trusting the community with education programs. So far there haven't been any disasters but there are also things not happening like approvals for OA applications.
 * If the community can do a good job at taking responsibility for all of the things that are involved with education programs then I am happy to support the community doing the job, for the selfish reason that complete crowdsourcing would save me and a lot of other people a lot of time trying to draft this proposal, and would leave the burden on people like GA reviewers, article watchers, volunteers on the education noticeboard, and WMF staff to deal with problems. Judging by the number of complaints about various classes causing problems on various parts of Wikipedia, I would say that at least some people are not altogether pleased with the current situation, and that BOE or something like it would be one way to deal with problems in a systematic way. If the community wants to crowdsource dealing with problems, the community is free to do that, but that choice comes with its own risks and costs. I think that BOE is a reasonable alternative.
 * I agree that it's important to have the discussion about where the balance should be, and I appreciate your interest.
 * If BOE isn't put into place, then the response will default to crowdsourcing as you suggested, with all the pros and cons associated with the status quo. If the community wants something different, I think that BOE is a good alternative way of getting things done and coordinated.
 * Also, I'm sorry if I sound annoyed. I'm spending a lot of time and energy on this proposal and part of me is wondering if this is all worth the effort. I now have an appreciation for why proposals to reform processes here on Wikipedia often get shelved because there is so much inertia and/or disagreement that it's far easier to be silent or to let things fall apart than to try to make a difference. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk)  09:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)