CZ:Nomination page/Editorial Council 2011/David Finn

To return to the main election page when you have finished reading, please click here: CZ:EC Election and Referenda December 2011.

Why vote for me? That question has two parts - the second is why me in particular, but the first is why anyone other than the current EC members? Lets take a look.

We now have one years worth of motions to examine. We also have the Charter provisions that govern how the EC should work. How do they compare?

There have been 53 passed motions. 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,16,24,36,47,50,51 and 52 are internal EC motions only to do with how they do business. 7,23,28,38,39,42,53,44,45 were all related to removing Howard from the project. Thats 24 down. 26 and 49 are thanking each other. That leaves 27.

Article 32

The Editorial Council is responsible for content and style policies. In particular, it shall

• make all decisions regarding the content of the Citizendium;

Of the 27 Motions several have been to do with current content - and lately a lot to do with deletion of said content. The EC in general have moved away from the idea of a Wiki in favour of writing an encyclopedia one article at a time, an approach which has also stalled. The content Motions have not generated an upsurge in content.

• establish the qualifications for Editors and establish the procedure for promoting Citizens to Editor status, provided that such qualifications and such procedures do not violate any article of this charter;

The EC have systematically disassembled the requirements for being an Editor to the point that being an Editor does not require editing, does not consider status or ability, and does not consider the ability to work in a wiki-environment nor the willingness to contribute to CZ.

• coordinate and supervise the Editors and their activities;

This crucial provision has had no attention. There has been no coordination of the Editors, there has been no supervision of the Editors. There was a long-running attempt to remove Howard as an Editor, but no use of the Workgroups, no attempt to involve Editors in the encyclopedia, no discussion of our resources, nothing.

• encourage and supervise development and organization of the Citizendium's content;

No Motions - except for an attempt to recategorize our approval rating system. Remember that one? I'm not surprised, this massive change to our system hasn't been widely advertised. It was made clear, a year ago and again recently, that the EC has no intention of doing the work to implement this ruling, and never had. The Charter mandates as little bureaucracy as possible, not making a higher level of bureaucracy that we don't inform anyone about, have no intention of implementing, but still wish to keep in reserve. This Motion would require that every article be reassessed, every policy page be revised, all our literature changed - a vote for the current EC is a vote for virtual bureaucracy to supplement the already bloated bureaucracy we already have.

• adjudicate disputes over content among Authors, Editors, and/or Managing Editor, and impose its decisions upon the content of the Citizendium;

So far adjudicating disputes seems to have stopped with the removal of Howard, a process that occupied six months of the ECs time, starting with this. i guess when you have presided over the departure of all the Editors there isn't much adjudicating left to do.

• publicly set its own rules and by-laws for its meetings; and

That one took 26 of 53 passed Motions, remember?

• be composed of a number of members corresponding to the quorum who shall be Editors while the rest of the members shall be Citizens who are not Editors.

The EC has not impressed so far. They haven't done nothing, but they have not even attempted to address what the Charter says is in part their job. Take a look at the passed Motions, start from the most recent and read back. When was the last time the EC gave a thought to organising CZ or its content or its Editors?

Nobody can any longer say that the EC is not part of the problem. When they are here they are not even discussing the half of their Charter provisions that remain unfulfilled - and attendance is a particular problem. The lack of motivation of potential CZ contributors is understandable. CZ hasn't failed, it is the Councils that have failed CZ.

Why me in particular? As one vote on the Council I could only present an opinion and give a vote. So what would you get that would be different?

• I pledge to discuss every Motion - no more rubberstamping favoured Motions, no more behind-the-scenes email discussions, what you see is what you get.
• I pledge to bring your concerns to the Council - no more having to fight your way past the Secretary or having to wait six months to start a referendum.
• I pledge simple attendance - not once every 75 days, not once a month, but regular attendance.
• I pledge to address the organisation of Editors and content by revitalising the Workgroups and helping John Stephenson with his outreach mission.

The Councils have got you where you are and have offered no solutions to remedy the situation. Vote for me, it couldn't be any worse.