Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Coordination Council

This is not such a good idea, and definitely unwiki. We are all volunteers here, and all equals. We do not have positions of power or leadership, especially not in WikiProjects. >Radiant< 10:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have similar concerns. I think the Project was working fine without formal leadership. User:Plange was effectively running the show but only through hard work and the respect of her peers; not through any formal process whatsoever. That worked better for me than this idea. Just my 2c. --kingboyk 12:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of a month ago, no newsletter had gone out since September. As far as I know, no one was working outreach (except Ozgod very recently and informally when the assessment drive started up). The biography collaboration was dead. The portal hadn't been updated in months. With the exception of two tasks completed by Menasim and one by Wizardman, nothing had been done in the automation department in months. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only updates happening were the peer reviews (largely through Yannismarou's work), assessment reviews through Bookworm and others, and the updates to the to-do lists being done by interested individuals and the FAC and FAR reviewers.

The more informal leadership by Plange was great - until she got busy in the real world or got burnt out. Whatever happened, it's pretty obvious that the project is way too big for just one person to step up and coordinate. I'm not saying we should have an elected leadership structure, like WikiProject Military History. But I'm saying we need people who are willing to commit to working on specific departments or work groups on a regular basis. From the proposal: "The project coordinators are generally responsible for coordinating work in a specific department or work group of the project, and serve as the points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers."

If you have a problem with the word leadership, fine. Change it. But it isn't about power. It's about the WikiProject with the broadest scope in all of WikiPedia being an effective and proactive entity. - Mocko13 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand me - kudos to you for showing some initiative, and the newsletter was most welcome. I'm just not sure this is the best way forward - or perhaps it just needs a new name and a slight rewording. That's why I threw a proposal template onto it, to initiate discussion like this. I think perhaps the thread should be moved to the main talk page? --kingboyk 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree, the proposal tag was very much appropriate. I'd be happy to have this on the main talk page; really I'm mostly interested in getting discussion going on how best to keep the project active. If this proposal only serves to get discussion going, it has helped. - Mocko13 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are and thanks again for stepping up to serve, I appreciate it and I hope others do too. --kingboyk 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to try to do some work keeping up the portal and the recognized content section, but am probably not right now (at least the next week or so) going to be able to do so. And maybe a less impressive sounding title, like Unit Maintenance members, might be a bit less controversial. John Carter 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]