I'm not saying that they would *ignore* readers, just that consistently taking outside parties into account is something every group finds difficult. I can see the community noting, in such discussions, that readers have a stake. I can even see them taking this stake into account when making decisions. I cannot see this becoming standard operating procedure - as ACTRIAL, amongst other things, demonstrates. Even simply "ringfencing" part of the budget wouldn't work. It would require technical changes that impact on readers and technical changes that impact on editors to be completely distinct, to the point where a change for one group doesn't impact on the other. This is not the case. Again, ACTRIAL - if the staff were forced to enact things or give them certain priorities because the editors demanded it, that would not be in force. Ringfencing budgets only works if liabilities and consequences are also ringfenced, and reality just doesn't work like that. Again, it also requires that particularly vocal and vehement members of the community represent the community as a whole, which they do not in any way, shape or form. To subject technical development for all editors to the control of the people who shout the loudest is a Bad Thing. I'm going to take the jump now and point out that the Foundation's staffers do not answer to editors. Editors, such as myself, do not control what staffers do, and they do not *get* to control what staffers do - that's the board's job. If you have a problem with this, run for the board of trustees and campaign to change that. Until such a decision gets made, however, there is no requirement for engineering to prioritise things based on what the editors want. Such a requirement would inevitably leave staff in a position where the editors are demanding X, and the people who pay their salary are demanding Y, causing chaos. This is not to say staff do not take editors into account - of course they do. As said, I'm working on engaging editors myself as a contractor, and the staff genuinely care what editors think of features in order to make them the best features they can possibly be. However, wanting an editorial perspective into features design does not and should not extend to editorial *governance*. In my personal capacity, as always. On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, I totally agree that Commons needs tagging and that such tagging will do much more to help people find the illustrations they are looking for then the current category and whatever system. WereSpielCheckers we agree on this. Now let us concentrate on things where we can win. When Commons has a priority, when the use of images from Commons has a priority I feel that this will make a difference. The good news is that a chapter can develop its own priorities as well and when it is able to allign its objectives with the objectives of the WMF, I am sure you have found yourself a community that can make a difference and will be able to make a difference. Thanks, GerardM On 30 October 2011 20:37, WereSpielChequers &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: