CZ Talk:Charter/Archive 1

CZ Talk:Charter

Current talk page

none (to start Archive 1)

This is an archived version of CZ Talk:Charter drafting in the version of 22:06, 10 November 2009, with the header sections removed.

Getting started

According to CZ:Charter drafting committee, we are supposed to base the drafting on CZ:Fundamentals. It's first point is "The nature of the project", which I have thus pasted into the draft page in order to get things rolling. Once we have agreed on the essence of this point, it will be more easy to proceed to other matters. I also think that, to reduce confusion in the interpretation of the terms used in the document, we should add links to appropriate pages in the main or CZ namespace, and if these pages do not exist yet, we should strive to create them. Keep in mind that any other Citizen can join the drafting of these pages, thus helping to clarify matters should we be unable to do so on our own (or vice versa). --Daniel Mietchen 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's some useful links to CZ:Home and the CZ:Policy_Outline page for reference. D. Matt Innis 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Point 6 should go, for several reasons. First, and I will elaborate on this, it is defining CZ with respect to being not-Wikipedia. Second, it's too fine-grained to be talking about specific markup and indexing concepts such as categories. Instead, we should be thinking of functional goals, such as better knowledge navigation, rather than features.

While there are those that believe the recent Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the accomplishment of being not-Bush, we really have to break away from the idea of being not-Wikipedia, and state what we uniquely want to do. Point 1, therefore, is a little ambiguous, because there's no definition of "encyclopedia". We may well want to talk about the attributes of an ideal online encyclopedia, before trying to make it into draft text -- such an effort need not be lengthy. Perhaps a subpage, analogous to the CZ wishlist, talking about functions would be useful here. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's brings up a good question. Now that I look at it, we're supposed to be drafting "based on the Fundamentals". Maybe we should not be concentrating on whether we like the specific statements, but using them to draft how to make future policies such as "How to change the Neutrality policy", or "How the EIC will be elected", etc.. D. Matt Innis 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

redacted my false start! D. Matt Innis 00:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Based on" means, to me, that the Fundamentals are a guide. After all, the Fundamentals contain the statement, "The Charter will supersede the present Statement of Fundamental Policies, and it will include information about how it may be amended."

That being said, we need not rewrite everything. It may be, for example, that we agree completely with the spirit of the Neutrality Policy, but the experience of two years can give us ideas how to explain it in a manner both more clear and more effective. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)

Okay, I see what you mean. See below the section that I saw. I emboldened the "develops the ideas". I think we could spend all four weeks debating just these 6 points, but maybe our time would be better spent building on them and changing things as we find contradiction.

• Committee members will be given broad latitude to define which specific issues the draft engages and how it does so but they are expected to create a document that develops the ideas encoded in the current statement of fundamental policies and those that are implicit in the day-to-day operation of the wiki. The committee will also be allowed to determine the way it divides its work among its members and other logistical matters.

After the EC, it looks like we're still on the same page. D. Matt Innis 01:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) We could start by figuring the way that the community can change this draft, ie. do we trust it to popular vote or design it in such a way that it can only be changed by those with a working knowledge of its purpose - a committee chosen by the community, etc. I think we all agree that it shouldn't be too easy to change, but not impossible. It needs to be a "living" document, I would think. I'm willing to hear from all you political editors! D. Matt Innis 01:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be a "living" document. For that reason, I think it is to our advantage to stay away from prescriptive language and overly specific details on certain points. Things will certainly change over time, so we would do best (I think) to draft a text that may be interpreted in novel situations; it must be clear about how it is to be interpreted yet not constrain future initiative. It should make crystal clear the intentions, purpose and vision of the project and how the members of the community are meant to work together toward that goal. I also think we should provide for other policies and documents to build off of the charter but be careful about how they are to do so. I do think we should be specific about the rights and responsibilities of people in each different position (author, editor, E-i-C, etc.) I agree with Howard that we should seek to craft an identity that does not simply define Citizendium as different from other projects. --Joe Quick 02:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Let's add the judicial process in there as well. And it all needs to be done in such a way that no one group has all the power or the responsibility; checks and balances. Are you taking notes? :) D. Matt Innis 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Committee chairperson?

This thread has been moved to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:Charter_drafting/Drafting_procedures&oldid=100589646. --Daniel Mietchen 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Started subpages off draft

These can be informal, but I think will cut the edit conflicts. The first is CZ: Charter drafting/What are we?, which addresses the eternal question, "what is this thing called love encyclopedia?" (Hari Seldon, where are you when we need you?) Howard C. Berkowitz 02:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. We were stepping all over each other earlier. I've got some additions to that page.D. Matt Innis 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another place to put our "things to address in the new Charter" CZ:Charter drafting/Things to address

We need a place to keep all these links organized... Daniel, any ideas? D. Matt Innis 03:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My first shot at structuring is the #Auxiliary pages section I added on top of this talk page. --Daniel Mietchen 08:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On a second thought, it may be better to define all crucial terms that are used in the text on dedicated definition pages, e.g. CZ:Charter drafting/Definitions/Encyclopedia, to which I just moved CZ:Charter drafting/What are we?, and to link to these definitions from the text. --Daniel Mietchen 10:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Deciding on the structure of the Charter

I don't have a problem starting with what's there, and also debating in some detail what should be defined as the nature of the project. I agree with Howard that some things are too detailed (we need concepts here) and negative definitions are "out". I do not wish to see any mention of "the other place" in the Charter, except perhaps parenthetically that refugees and tourists are welcome.

However, for the rest of the Charter I really do advocate deciding fairly soon what sections there will be, what those sections address, and why we will have them. That way we can start to build the skeleton, and later add some joints, muscles, flesh etc./.. So, let's not get into details, but focus on fundamental principles and institutional arrangements that (in our experience) CZ has needed in the last years. It has to be really conceptual at this point, so let's not rush it and allow everyone to speak.

For the above reason, at this point I am deferring my own suggestions for structure until we have more comments. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and suggest that we decide within one week (i.e. until Oct 21 is over) about the phrasing of the Statement of purpose and of the nature of the project as well as about the names and hierarchy of the other points that should be in the charter. We would then have three weeks to flesh out the latter. I also think that we should document our agreement on the points that come up in a formalized way. As a test case, please indicate below (by signing with four tildes) whether you agree with the schedule I proposed in this paragraph, or whether you disagree or abstain:

Agree	Disagree	Abstain	Comments
Daniel Mietchen 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)			The table is not user-friendly, Daniel.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Daniel Mietchen 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, no time for arguments on this one. A more simple way to go about voting is to create three subsections, and to allow people to add comments to their votes. I'll try this below. Daniel Mietchen 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tracking changes

I have made some changes to the text. To make it easier to follow, I have used the rule of strikeout for text to be deleted, and bold for text to be inserted. Do we have agreement on this as a protocol? Of course, we could just use the compare facility between different versions, but this seems more transparent to me. Also, we could have another page with the text appearing without markups: is it possible to do this automatically in some way? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On that note, perhaps substantial changes should be proposed and deliberated here before they're made to the main page? Shamira Gelbman 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of Content

Regarding the line: "The Citizendium will make and keep useful information about its projects available free of charge and in perpetuity."

I take this to mean the content of the site not information about the content of the site. Russell D. Jones 14:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting procedure

This thread was moved to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:Charter_drafting/Drafting_procedures&oldid=100589650#Voting_procedures. --Daniel Mietchen 23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration for keeping things short

Can be found here. --Daniel Mietchen 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

42. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

CZ as a Wiki

The salient point is not that it uses a particular software technique, but that preapproval is not always required.

Saying The Citizendium will be a wiki. potentially rules out databases, semantic networks, and other kinds of software that have been discussed for adding, to the compendium, things as diverse as gene maps and political relationship networks. The Charter should not limit the software. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that "wiki" is generally defined without that limitation; as, e.g., on dictionary.com: "A collaborative website whose content can be edited by anyone who has access to it." Shamira Gelbman 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with not specifying what the software will be. The wiki is built on a database. Russell D. Jones 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Shamira, that's a reason for not limiting to "wiki". There can be perfectly reasonable things in a compendium that take special knowledge to edit--it's not a content authorization issue. Even now, not everyone that has access to CZ can edit an Approved article. The point is that we don't want to impose unreasonable intellectual limitations. Not saying "wiki" is one less technical term in a charter meant to be straightforward. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy will be decided by the Editorial council.

Which policies? Content, behavioral? I'm not necessarily saying this can't be the same council.

The idea of trust or reliability marking, though, I think is fundamental enough that it should be addressed, at a high level, in the Charter. It is a differentiator implicit in expert guidance, which also needs to be somewhere. The details of marking need not be in the Charter. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sole management and control of Citizendium shall be vested in the Editorial Council elected by the general membership. Composition, election, terms, meetings and committees for the Council shall be further set forth in the Bylaws.

I don't see that "sole management and control of CZ" will be vested in any one entity, unless that entity is going to include representation from every group.

D. Matt Innis 22:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the source of that quote? Please use permalinks. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the link above. I think I see what Russell is trying to say, but this is a big change, so I have to ask "who makes up this Editorial Council?" I might consider it if anyone could be a member.D. Matt Innis 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matt's comment. This notion of "sole management and control" throws the separation of powers by the wayside, so, without a lot of argument, I'd be very opposed to that change. --Larry Sanger 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop this

Thread moved to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:Charter_drafting/Drafting_procedures&oldid=100589658#Let.27s_stop_this. --Daniel Mietchen 23:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure, not starting with detail

I repeat my point from above. We need to decide what the Charter will do, identify sections and proceed with consensus from those points. The draft ideas can be put here, or on the whiteboard that was set up, but there has not be some agreement on how to proceed. It can not be done by individuals just editing the page.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Russell D. Jones 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I said something similar in the #Getting started section and haven't changed my mind since (though I am prepared to change it on the chair person issue). I also think we should establish a procedure to reach consensus — that's why I set up #Voting procedure and hope someone else will comment on it. --Daniel Mietchen 19:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I could go either way on the chair issue; I think it might be worthwhile to assign different sections to individual (or pairs of) committee members for initial drafts, which could then serve as a basis for deliberation and revision by the committee as a whole. Shamira Gelbman 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we have discussion before moving pages?

I find the movement rather distracting. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so much the movement but rather the chopping and changing on the draft page without much rationale. Meg Ireland 23:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is that I try to keep things organized via the #Auxiliary pages section because this page is growing very fast. hopefully, the forum just started will bring some relieve. I will stop moving pages for now and just finish labeling the archived sections as such. --Daniel Mietchen 23:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Charter Forum started

As requested, I've opened a new Charter child forum meant soley for elected members to discuss issues and started it with the suggestion that we elect a chairperson. D. Matt Innis 23:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd really prefer we not use the Forums, or, to be cynical, at least until we define the functionality that the Forum software gives that Wikimedia does not, and then note that it is a requirement for the Compendium. Non-citizens may not even know the Forums exist, so if we are trying to have the deliberations as a form of positive publicity, they belong in the Wiki space. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be using the forum threads for anything we would have been discussing via email rather than on this page. Shamira Gelbman 01:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's sometimes easier to catch new posts on individual forum threads than it is on one of these pages, especially if people are editing from the top rather than within individual sections. Shamira Gelbman 01:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Misc comments

I'm very puzzled about the entire lack of any mention (so far) of executive powers, in the form of an Editor-in-Chief or Executive Committee or what have you. I am not saying that such functions really must be in the document, but I am saying that this needs both clarification and justification. There are many issues that really cannot and should not be decided "out in the open" by anything like a large-ish council--such as issuing press releases and speaking publicly on behalf of the project, answering inquiries about licensing matters, deciding that money shall be spent on this and not that, actually initiating new software changes, and so forth. Those are all matters that I and the Executive Committee have done in the past, and they are not generally the sort of things that deliberative bodies, per se, are suited for.

I am not sure what need there is for a "technical council." I imagine this would decide on technical requirements--perhaps I am mistaken. But if so, I think I would be opposed to it, except as a subcommittee of the Editorial Council. The software is not a "technical" thing. One thing you have to bear in mind about social software is that it encodes both editorial policy and social practices. The notion that editors and others not directly involved in the use of the system should not be in control of software requirements is can't be taken seriously. If the remit of a technical council were to write requirements and issue orders about spending money on programers, etc., and therefore if it were to be staffed by regular active Citizens, then I have to wonder why this is separate from the Editorial Council and not a subcommittee.

If the Editorial Council is to become more powerful, I think it also should become more nimble, perhaps with its membership dependent on the number of active participants. Right now it is too large.

Finally, to speak in broad generalities, while I'm glad that you all are approaching this in a spirit of creativity, you should at each point try to acquaint yourselves with what is on the books--i.e., with what you would be changing. This project has been under development for 3 years and it's 2.5 years since launch, so a large part of the job involves formalizing what is already in place. Regarding our policy generally, if it ain't broke (and a lot of it ain't!), don't fix it.

I see no need to state that the name of the project is "Citizendium" or that it is a wiki.

--Larry Sanger 02:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Larry. I think this was an just the opening volley. Now that we have realized that chaos leads to confusion, we have agreed that we need a chairperson and we are currently voting via email. Stay tuned for the next, more coherent phase. D. Matt Innis 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The lack of any discussion about management is a serious deficit, thus far. The reference to the Editorial Council was inserted by one person, and has several opponents or critics. Thus far, nobody (including myself) has a clear idea about whether the separation of powers is necessary or desirable; I can understand, though, that the feeling of many on the Editorial Council is that they have been excluded from some crucial decision-making areas. The advantage of having only one elected body would be to keep things simple, but there would have to be new substructures devised (also with accountability) to provide expertise and flexibility of management. The creation of those new substructures might render "simplicity" impossible, whilst raising questions of accountability. It all needs to be debated, and I doubt that 4 weeks is long enough. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you, Martin. The idea is enticing, as at first glance it seems simple enough. On the one hand, if it allows author representation at an equal level as editors it might suffice as a representative government, but that would water down the expert control. I'm not sure that is desireable either. On the other hand, if it remains editors only, then we have no representation for authors, who have their own issues and challenges that tend to get ignored. For instance, authors may want to have a say in developing a policy about producing bots, because that is certainly something that they can do for the project, but if they aren't part of the EC, they won't be able to vote on it. That's not the best example, but you get the idea. D. Matt Innis 04:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, as a point of procedure, if there is in fact general opposition or resistance to an insertion, it should be removed and the burden should be upon the person who put it in.

The separation of powers is in fact one of the original principles of this project, and it ought not to be discarded lightly.

If the Editorial Council has lacked authority, that is only because it has not exercised its very broad authority over editorial issues, which is most of the important issues concerning the project. That is not a constitutional problem but more of an operational one. --Larry Sanger 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We are currently finding our ways into structuring the drafting process. We have set up a private whiteboard for this purpose, but so far it remains white, since all of us have opted to do their brainstorming here in public instead, in the interest of transparency. So what is on the draft page now is more or less a collection of keywords, thoughts and ideas, mingled with existing text from earlier policy documents. We will hopefully be able to turn this into something more structured soon, but rest assured that we make our best efforts that nothing that "ain't broke" will run the risk of being "discarded lightly". We haven't yet reached the point at which to discuss the separation of powers or how to ensure that technical decisions are being made with due respect to both technical expertise and non-technical ramifications. --Daniel Mietchen 12:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without belaboring the point but the page really isn't a collection of thoughts and ideas but an exercise in WPism. Russell D. Jones 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"If the Editorial Council has lacked authority, that is only because it has not exercised its very broad authority over editorial issues, which is most of the important issues concerning the project. That is not a constitutional problem but more of an operational one."

Boy, that's an understatement, and one which I agree with wholeheartedly.

I think the two issues: giving the EC all the powers and removing the EIC from the picture, probably have more to do with the lack of defined roles for the EIC and editors that allows the EIC to over-rule an editorial decision on an article. Our current policies suggest that the decisions go through workgroup, then EC (dispute resolution), then EIC, then constabulary. Unfortunately, the workgroup process is lacking and the EC Dispute resolution process has never materialized. This left the intervention to the EIC, and lately the constabulary as a stopgap. We constables are withholding this power in hopes that the EC will step up to content issues.

Having said that, the EC does need to be checked and balanced, if for no other reason but to know that someone can intervene. By the same token, the EIC needs to be checked as well. I think this is what the Charter should define, then let each exercise their roles and responsibilities without prejudice.

D. Matt Innis 14:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"In my opinion, as a point of procedure, if there is in fact general opposition or resistance to an insertion, it should be removed and the burden should be upon the person who put it in." I agree Larry, and have taken it upon myself to make editorial changes indicating non-approval of all such text in the document. We appear not to have made any organisational progress, thus far: things are still operating at an individual level. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all completely wrong. There is absolutely no agreed upon text of any kind yet for this charter. Russell D. Jones 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Going back to the EiC question (and to further belabor the analogies to political government), I think it might pay to think about the position more in terms of presidential vs. prime ministerial models rather than whether it exists at all or not. Just from the few days since this charter drafting process began, we've seen the necessity of having a single individual (we've been calling it a "chair") to facilitate coordination and make sure things get done efficiently (or at all) by the committee. It would be somewhat hypocritical to ignore this necessity at the level of CZ governance. That said, a "chair" or "Editor in Chief" could either be a "first among equals" on the EC (the prime ministerial model; also the model adopted in the U.S. Supreme Court), or s/he could be vested with more powers to make decisions unilaterally (as in the U.S. president's relationship to his cabinet). There are pros and cons to both models, which should probably be hashed out here and in the forums before a decision is finalized. Shamira Gelbman 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always said that we need an EiC with presidential style powers, for the purpose of making executive decisions that cannot be resolved by editors or the EC. For a ministerial model to work, there would have to be an inner EC (a cabinet). The starting point for discussion, therefore, is whether the EC should be the supreme locus of all power in CZ, or if there should be another institution responsible for non-editorial management issues (currently, the EiC + Exective Cttee). My preference is for two institutions, for reasons I will give later. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll third all that :) I'm also thinking that since we already have a system, unless we have a really good reason to change it, we should probably just build on what we have. The executive committee currently acts as a cabinet and we should probably let the president the EIC pick those that he trusts to give him advice, but leave the decision up to him. Ultimately, our forefathers already thought of all of that! I'll wait till chair is confirmed, but nothing wrong with a little pre-emptive "brainstorming" as Howard puts it! D. Matt Innis 19:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I see too many offices, too many committees, for what amounts to 40-50 active participants. That the EC hasn't done much I think is a testament to (1) it's lack of authority; IF CZ is an "encyclopedia," it should be governed by a board of editors; end of story; why have area editors to approve content when we have an editorial board? It's a simple usurpation of editorial authority which has been shifted from the board of editors to the area editors. Whether or not there is a role for an editor-in-chief is worthy of discussion. and (2) it's a procedural nightmare. I shepherded the last resolution through the EC and it took me a lot of time and effort. The proposal system is interesting and promising for an online community, but burdened with too many rules. Russell D. Jones 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I frequently have had that thought, Russell--I totally agree with it. Too many largish bodies for too few active participants now. But, on the other hand, we need something scalable in case we grow so much as to warrant larger bodies. --Larry Sanger 04:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just the start of the process

Just to keep people looking forward; A charter isn't going to solve any of the problems here. It will set up the framework for solutions through the empowerment of its institutions. Those institutions must still go about the process of reform. This could take us a long time. What happens, as Larry suggests has been the case with the current EC, if empowered to bring about its own reform, the EC fails to act? Are we any place different? The charter must be different enough to inspire people towards participation in governance. It must re-invigorate CZ. If we end up ratifying the status quo, we fail. Russell D. Jones 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And regarding whatever this is

I've state in other places (we've so many now, I've lost track), we've put the cart before the horse. No one should assume that anything on this page is even under consideration at this time by the charter drafting committee. Russell D. Jones 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought of deleting it, but decided to leave it to the Chair. However... Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did delete it. But put it back because we hadn't reached a decision about what to do with it. Russell D. Jones 13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)