governance-issues: Difference between revisions

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Examples: link)
Line 28: Line 28:
* Issue rejection [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-February/008864.html governance]
* Issue rejection [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-February/008864.html governance]
* Negative, PoV and derogatory edit summary content such as "[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=hcard-authoring&diff=13621&oldid=12276#Add_To_Address_Book_Links smelled of excessive political correctness worrying]" and "[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=to-do&curid=1110&diff=13989&oldid=13988&rcid=23801 removed non-productive comment]".
* Negative, PoV and derogatory edit summary content such as "[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=hcard-authoring&diff=13621&oldid=12276#Add_To_Address_Book_Links smelled of excessive political correctness worrying]" and "[http://microformats.org/wiki?title=to-do&curid=1110&diff=13989&oldid=13988&rcid=23801 removed non-productive comment]".
*[[rejected-formats#Pavatar|listing of items as "rejected"]] when requests for evidence of said rejection reveal none.
*[[rejected-formats#Pavatar|listing of items as "rejected"]] when [http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-January/008271.html requests for evidence of said rejection] reveal none.


== Proposal ==
== Proposal ==

Revision as of 20:19, 5 March 2007

Issue Summary 2007-02-28

Editor

Ernest Prabhakar

Contributors

  • Please add yourself

Preamble

Over the last year, several people have expressed concern/frustration/confusion about how the Microformats wiki, mailing list, and community are governed.This page is here to discuss ideas for documenting, formalizing, and/or improving our collective governance.

Abstract

Governance has [www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/vs-sb/voluntarysector/glossary.html been defined] as "the traditions, institutions and processes that determine how power is exercised, how citizens are given a voice, and how decisions are made on issues of public concern." In the context of Microformats, it covers:

  • Rules (both written and unwritten) expected of community members
  • Who the various Admins are
  • What powers Admins have
  • Rules for how/when Admins can/should use those powers
  • How to questioning/appealing a decision by an Admin
  • How to become an Admin
  • How to question/change any of these

While not all of these need to be explicitly spelled out, a healthy community our size requires a broad shared understanding of these facts -- as well as acceptance of them as "legitimate."

Examples

Note: This is not to take a position on whether or not any of these decisions were appropriate or inappropriate. Rather, the existence of these events demonstrates the need to document why and how such decisions were -- or should be -- made and/or appealed.

Proposal

  1. Create a microformats-admin mailing list, for easily contacting all admins
  2. Create a microformats-meta mailing list, moderated by a non-Admin, to capture discussions that do not fit into current lists, plus act as a "court of appeals" for Admin decisions.
  3. Create and maintain a governance page that captures and describes
  • the identity of current Admins
  • how to contact them
  • the kinds of behavior warranting Admin intervention
  • how to appeal an Admin decision/action

Resources