Anthony wrote:
On 6/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
To give an example, I would suggest that
Wikipedians (who aren't involved in
Wikinews) shouldn't be involved in a discussion as to whether or not to
change the name of Wikinews, because they are not at all part of the core
group of the Wikinews project.
That sounds like an effective divide and conquer strategy. A person who
is determined to effect these changes would likely have an easier time
doing it that way than by trying to develop a consensus across all the
projects at once.
I was thinking it'd be just the opposite. If you have a consensus across
each project individually, then you automatically have a consensus across
all projects as a whole. The reverse, however, is not true.
Sure, but tactically it is more effective to work on one project at a
time. Get the low hanging fruit first, and use that as a foundation for
going after the more resistant ones. When only 5% or 10% of the
projects have not changed pressuring them could bring the results that
you want.
I very much support the operational autonomy of
projects, but this is
not an operational matter; it's a question of
identity.
Well, I certainly think a project's members should have a say in their
identity. Not that they should be the sole determiner of that, mind you,
but a change from above which doesn't have the support of the project's core
members is bound to fail anyway.
Yes, and that's why one examines the situation from a tactical
perspective. I would advise against being complacent about changes from
above.
To draw a
parallel with the United States, would it be
acceptable if State X
insisted on calling itself the "Confederate State of X"? Even an
overwhelming popular vote in the state for that would not find
acceptance in a wider community.
No, it wouldn't be acceptable. IMO change should only come with the consent
of *both* the core members of the project *and* the core members of the
foundation as a whole.
Yes, I agree that there should agreement at both levels. We then have
to agree on what we mean by "core". How much room is there in the core
for people who ask tough questions? ;-)
Ec