Wikipedia talk:Development committee/Archive 1

One question
The "strict formality" thing. I can at least theoretically imagine a few instances where, for whatever reason, Jimbo might know of a very good reason why a given person might not be a good choice for the committee, but not be in a position to say what that reason is. One such reason might be, for instance, being a sock or meatpuppet, or alternate name, of someone working for the "competition", or someone who for some other reason is personally, if not necessarily obviously, thinking and probably acting against the best interests of the project. I might myself change the existing statement and say instead that anyone who puts themselves forward as a candidate for the committee also, by virtue of that fact, authorizes the Foundation or its representatives to release any information they might have regarding that individual. By doing that, Jimbo could, in an extreme case, say that, for instance, "(X) is in reality (Y), who has repeatedly stated elsewhere (like maybe the Wikipedia Review) that he is committed to the destruction and downfall of the project, and thus isn't a good choice for this group", or something to that effect. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea. I was toying with suggesting that the elected members need to be ratified by ArbCom (which would allow for that sort of information to be provided and acted upon without being publicised), but was concerned about that being overly bureaucratic. Your thoughts? → ROUX   ₪  18:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would ArbCom necessarily be in a position to know everything the Foundation itself might? I don't know enough about such things to know one way or another. If yes, I think it would probably be preferable. If not, then Jimbo or some other official might still be the best choice. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, but I'm leery of anything that entrenches Jimbo's actual power any further. ArbCom, as I understand it, is frequently in possession of highly confidential material from the Foundation, so these sorts of concerns would not be unusual for it. I welcome correction/clarification from past or current members of ArbCom. → ROUX   ₪  18:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with John (although would really prefer to frame it without veiled references to recent events). Suppose a popular candidate has a history that raises doubts about their suitability?  An editor was sitebanned for socking a policy, subsequently allowed to return under a new name, and runs on a platform of establishing a new process that would amount to the same thing s/he had been socking to gain.  I know of no actual instance like that, but hypothetically possible.  Safety valves can be good things.  Durova  277
 * If you refering to me making "veiled references", then I'm afraid that they're veiled even from me. I was just trying to put forward the most obvious example. Ones I tend to think more likely are that someone who might have a clear and perhaps overriding fondness for certain types of content (like, well, porn, for instance), and/or might be in some way tied to another site which seeks to have as many links to in wikipedia as possible, might be seen as being potentially problematic if they were in a position where they could suggest changes to policy or guidelines which might be seen as favoring their own internal or external interests. There might be some recent discussion somewhere about one or the other of those two somewhere as well, maybe, but if there I don't specifically remember it. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, in your example ArbCom would know about this (presuming the 'coming back' wasn't public), and thus the ratification idea would cover it. → ROUX   ₪  20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good proposal, and a good way the transition could work from the present council to this more community-owned committee. Suggest you add a link to it on the various ACPD talk pages for further input. I still think there may be value in letting arbcom nominate a few wildcards, in addition to elected membership.  JN  466  21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly see the value in having an Arbcom-apppointed wildcard or two, but one of the major concerns raised at the RfC is the need for 'separation of powers.' While I think the ACPD was a perfectly fine idea, I see where they're coming from with that. → ROUX   ₪  21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Term duration
The length of term seems long. If the goal is the generation of new ideas/solutions and then presenting them for acceptance by the community, long terms aren't required (unlike ArbCom or MedCom where very long, drawn out arbitration and mediation is unavoidable). New ideas need new people, regularly. Why not 6 months? Ha! (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but my concerns are: revolving door of elections takes up too much time and drama, we need overlapping groups of people (same as arbcom) so it's not a Brand New Day every 6 months or whatever.→ ROUX   ₪  19:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe four tranches of 5 members each? That would get new elections every six months, and I think there is a reasonable chance of a lot of burnout here, so it would also allow for election of replacement candidates for people who withdraw from the group a bit more quickly. And I think it would make sense, maybe, to add some sort of minimum level of activity qualification for people to remain members. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. And would still jibe with what I just added (about 50% of the elected members-at-large serving 1 year for the initial term, so as to create the overlap needed). You can probably word it better than I could. → ROUX   ₪  19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Made a couple of changes. One thing I have noticed regarding ArbCom is that even when individuals say they are running for a two year term, in a lot of cases they don't complete that term. It might make more sense for individuals to indicate in advance just how long they are willing to commit to. If someone is willing to commit for only a shorter term, when !voters are looking for longer term candidates, that could reasonably be seen as a factor to consider in !voting. Feel free to make any changes to the new revision, though. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think having flexible term lengths would make elections confusing, and that fixed terms are better for getting stuff done--parameters are always good--but I'll defer to consensus. → ROUX   ₪  20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha!'s suggestion is a good one. Even the wisest Wikipedians have a limited number of ideas to bring to the table. Fresh blood is a good idea. Since this is purely advisory, changing the mix on a frequent basis would be useful. Durova 277 20:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest also that however this is set up we make sure that the elections never coincide or become close to ArbCom elections. Having two separate election procedures running at once is a recipe for extra confusion and drama. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent idea. AC elections are November-December yeah? September would then seem to be a good time for these (I'm still preferring a yearly approach). And (if this could get implemented quickly), it would give the interim committee members six weeks or so to iron out process stuff and then stand for election along with whoever else wishes to. → ROUX   ₪  21:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Terms need to be long enough to provide some continuity of discussion. 6 months is probably on the short side. ArbCom deals, after all with individual issues--though they do tend to repeat. This committee will be dealing with very long standing questions. What the upper limit should be will be learned by experience. I think of this as a trial: the committee either will come up with some good ideas, or it will not. If it does not, then either a different group of people might, or the concept isn't suitable. DGG (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more or less why I'm landing on a year being a good term, with half of the first slate of members elected serving six months in order to guarantee overlapping terms. → ROUX   ₪  00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:
 * If you are going to give ArbComm veto power over the members, I'd make the elections April-October, so that at least in October, ArbComm's veto could be an election issue.
 * Perhaps only a certain number of charter members should be eligible for election at the first elections, perhaps only a third of the membership. After that, all restrictions would be removed.
 * I'm not sure I like the idea of "minority" (non-admin) reserved seats on DevCom. Perhaps only for the first two elections, and on the second election ballot would also be a referendum on whether to extend it.  Also, non-admins who are serving on DevCom if there are maximum numbers of admins may not have an RfA while on DevCom (even if it wouldn't blow the limit, just a general restriction).
 * Aside from that, there are probably tweaks that will come to me as I study it more, but this is for sure something I could support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first is an excellent point, agreed. Second point, I see where you are coming from, but the community has been pretty clear about 'no appointees'. (I disagree with that, but consensus...) The minority seats I feel are necessary to ensure that the current widening divide between admins and non-admins doesn't get wider. Not being able to have an RFA is an excellent point, but we do need some way to ensure that non-admins are represented; on the ACPD only three members are non-admins, and that is a bit of a problem. → ROUX   ₪  18:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thus the referendum. The great majority of editors are non-admins.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections vs. appointments

 * It despairs me to see that elections are being suggested as the proper way to invite people to participate in a think tank. There are many people that can add value to Wikipedia English discussions that are not well known on Wikipedia English and would have little chance of getting elected.


 * And also the idea of having voting members and non voting members is drastically different from the original idea of the ACPD. People in the group are their to share ideas.


 * And rotating people through the group will happen by attrition. As people leave for various reasons, they need to be replaced, I think. But if the people are working on complex projects that need research are they going to be removed from the group mid way through their work on an issue because of an artificial deadline.


 * I hope that you will rethink the ideas. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested only one nonvoting member along the lines of a Speaker in parliamentary systems: keep things moving. Agreed on outside (non enwiki) input being required, thus the point about working groups. As for elections.. the community has spoken with regards to this issue, and has rejected Arbcom's ability to a) form such a committee, b) appoint its members. This vexes me, but if something like this is to have any legitimacy it must not run contra to what the community has approved. → ROUX   ₪  20:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the community has gotten a good chance to truly weigh the pros and cons of a group of invited members versus elected members. If we are going to keep out every person that will not stand for election then we might limit the group to admins and functionaries. I think that model will suck!! My idea was to INCREASE the number of regular users by searching them out in venues like WikiChix or FAC. I fear elections will have the reverse effect. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The obvious solution to that is to have a certain number of seats reserved for non-admins. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with Flo - elections are not a solution here. But appointment by the ArbCom isn't either and I'm not singling out the committee alone (I have a lot of respect for it and for the individuals involved - even if I disagree with them occasionally) no group of editors (sysops or 'crats or stewards) are of higher value/importance than any other.  There can be no select group of editors on WP.  Seriously a development committee might be something that the board/office should look at - something with absolutely no power to enact its proposals here or elsewhere, and no involvement with the communities it suggests changes for.  Thus it is just an advisory panel, and one that is not seen to be on anybody's side.  The weak points to my suggestion are that a) its no more democratic than this one; and b) it would require a lot of input by/through Jimbo or A N Other office/Board member which might not be feasible.  I do see the double bind this creates but there remains a problem with both elections and ArbCom (or any other group) appointments.  I just want to pose some questions that I hope are helpful. First, why would it be necessary for there be a direct connection (as in the orginal proposal and in this one) to ArbCom in a policy development committee?  Also a question to Roux (and everyone else) - why should the whole user base by represented this is not a governing committee - there remains a paradox in wanting a committee to be representative but not a government? IMHO if we are to have a development committee just find the best people (whoever and wherever they are) and pay them to do a consultancy job that ends with them giving us a report which we as a community can ignore or enact (in part or in full)-- Cailil   talk 01:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole userbase needs to be represented as any suggestions for policy changes or new policies should have representative input; when you convene a focus group, for example, you need to ensure it is broadly representative of your target demographics and/or your non-target demographics to find out both what is and is not working. → ROUX   ₪  20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire point of appointments is to include in the group people who aren't going to go through the electoral gauntlet; the product of an election is a self-selected group of candidates. Unfortunately, the drama surrounding the existing group forced a number of (imo) highly-qualified candidates to bow out, so the results seem to be the same either way. Nifboy (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, elections are not the way to go, appointments showing a wide variety of views would be needed to make this group work. RP459 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Elections would create a committee of the most popular users, not a committee with wide-ranging views. There's the additional side-problem of non-admin representation - if the community like a user, he/she is normally an admin. If we have a directly elected committee we limit both the representation of the community on it and the representation of non-admins on it. Ironholds (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean?
What does that mean? The arbitration committee is a dispute resolution committee isn't it? It's purpose is to make decisions regarding specific disputes between individual editors or groups of editors. So if it is an arbcom analogue, then its role should be to develop process and policy regarding disputes, no? But the proposed scope of this new committee is far greater than that. This makes me think that there is a deeply held belief here that ArbCom is more than a simple tool for dispute resolution. If ArbCom is more than a dispute resolution committee, then what is it? What's it for and what should it do? The premise of this proposal is that ArbCom is the "government" of Wikipedia. That's wrong isn't it? Can someone clarify why the development committee is an analogue to ArbCom, when ArbCom is a dispute resolution committee? Alun (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Development Committee is proposed as a policy and process development analogue to the Arbitration Committee"
 * ArbCom isn't the entire government of Wikipedia. They're something like the Supreme Court -- the last resort for difficult disputes. And their scope is limited, particularly because they're not supposed to make content decisions. DevCom sounds more like an executive branch, charged with identifying ways Wikipedia can be actively improved and then getting them done. (If you want to complete the analogy to the American government, Congress is everyone who participates in policy discussions.) rspεεr (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Already exists, surely?
Surely we are all a part of the "Development Committee" already? Does the Village Pump not operate as a forum for idea generation and brainstorming? Doesn't WP:CENT disseminate the ideas of the "committee"?

I would be afraid that a centralised, elected and official (one-and-only) "development" committee would discourage the ideas of everyone else. Would I be allowed to have an idea? Would I be allowed to brainstorm? Would I still have my job? Or would it only be for elected people?

If you want to be part of a development committee you can join one right now. You don't need this committee formed. You don't need to be elected to it. You already are on the development committee. Go to the Village Pump. Join a WikiProject. Write an essay. Discuss policy and guidelines. Participate in centralised discussion.

A single "development" committee is a bad idea. It will vie for power with the development committee we are all already a part of. It won't get my !vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the way you think. I agree that any model for improving how we generate ideas and brainstorm should be open to all, and not founded in a closed or exclusive group.  Nevertheless, perennial proposals highlights a broken aspect to the current system; we do need ways to improve our discussions so that it clusters similar ideas together, and supports long-term discussion and not just temporary ideas or proposals that hang around until they reach a resolution or are archived.  +sj +  08:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a single development committee would discourage ideas elsewhere. And clearly we need better ways of sifting new ideas, and this is one way (I tried another way, WP:PROJPOL, and it went nowhere). I'd suggest however that election by lottery (sortition) would be better, and less bureaucratic, than Yet Another Set Of Elections. Obviously members shouldn't be chosen from all WP accounts, but rather from the group of editors who individually choose to put themselves forward (possibly screened with some experience criteria - auto-confirmed, say, or only accounts existing on a certain date before the election is announced). The advantage of this is that it would somewhat more resemble jury service, more particularly the Citizens' jury, which for these advisory purposes is a better model I think than either bureaucracy or democracy. Rd232 talk 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is a spectacular idea, actually. I can see some concerns with it, but the basis is sound. What if e.g. the community voted for 30, of whom 20 are randomly selected? That ensures there is still trust from the community in the process and thinking going on. → ROUX   ₪  19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant suggestion. Perhaps if we had a initial vote (say, one must have 15/30/however many supports to be listed) and then had the 20 users randomly selected from that lot to serve six month terms. Six months later the process goes around again, and crucially users selected in the previous lottery can't run again. One can serve multiple terms, but not multiple consecutive terms. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was exactly why WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:BURO were drafted. Doing an end run around those policies will likely meet massive resistance. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy or removing voices. There is a chronic problem on Wikipedia: discussions get stalled and derailed because of various personal grudges, internecine power plays, arguments over comma placement, etc. Having a focus group to carefully examine issues affecting Wikipedia and then propose solutions to the community avoids much of that mess, and guarantees that proposals are more fully fleshed out and have been carefully examined from all angles. There is nothing whatsoever that would prevent any random Wikipedian from proposing any policy/guideline/whatever they wish, exactly the same as we do now. This is intended as an adjunct to that process, and not a replacement. The ridiculous mess over FlaggedRevs would be a perfect case in point as to why this sort of thing is necessary. → ROUX   ₪  01:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You already expressed your bias toward the hypothetical proposal this group makes vs ones from a normal editor. A proposal from this committee is "guaranteed to be fully fleshed out and have been carefully examined". You are already biased away from the community, and this doesn't even exist yet!  I don't think you could have made my point any better than this.  Gigs (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't ascribe motives to me that don't exist. This proposal is intended to provide a vehicle whereby the usual bickering and nonsense that accompanies any proposal is significantly lessened. I fail to see how that is a bad thing, except inasmuch as it challenges the stultifying apathy and adherence to the status quo that besets the entire project. → ROUX   ₪  02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, to split Roux's point into two : people want to examine issues affecting Wikipedia, and work towards solutions to propose to the community -- rather than having discussions stall and derail.
 * Rather than examining issues by first designing a small structured group and then asking them to come up with issues to examine, let's ask everyone to list issues that aren't being adequately addressed. People from both sides of an argument or power play should be able to agree on issues of importance that make no progress.
 * Rather than asking a small group to come up with solutions internally and then present them for public discussion, let's ask a large open-ended group to practice being good facilitators; and let's create a permanent namespace for major issues, where discussions can crystallize over many rounds of brainstorming, debate, and facilitated reflection.

For an example of what this might look like, see Community facilitation (and add issues to Issues). It's just one possibility, but it focuses on what we want to see more of (places for stable long-term discussion and good facilitators) rather than a particular implementation for generating the end result (some specific model for producing shiny final-draft proposals that the community will automatically love). +sj + 08:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)