Brigitte,
this  is simply stupid (No I'm not saying that your a stupid). We are talking abot 9 lines of code, and the communities, which want to stick to no IP's, have this by default, without any change in behaviour und usage. This extension is fully form fit function compatible to the existing system.  There is no reason of technically forking, and 

I think the german language ws is the community with longest experience with the hard rules like
-proofreading twice
-the must of scans.


2009/11/18 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
To clarify

I understand the forking discussion to mean soley forking the development of the Proofreadpage extension.  This would result in two versions of the extension; each maintained by separate developers.  The various Wikisource subdomains could each choose which version they wanted to have installed locally.

Birgitte SB

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com> wrote:

> From: Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] Proofreading
> To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 11:43 AM
> There are NO considerations in the
> German Wikisource Community to fork
> in another way than technically, only regarding the
> Wikimedia
> Software.
>
> We will definitively remain part of the Wikisource
> branches.
>
> ThomasV has definitvely denied any cooperation with the
> German
> community. When choosen to administrator he had promised to
> make java
> script programming for the German community. In the now
> running
> deadministration process he has said that he is unwillingly
> to do so.
>
> German Wikisource needs a developer with SVN access -
> that's the only
> solution IMHO.
>
> Klaus Graf
>
> 2009/11/18 Jesse (Pathoschild) <pathoschild@gmail.com>:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Cecil <cecilatwp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> So this patch seemed like a great solution. It
> would not change anything for
> >> any of the other Wikisources (unless they want
> it). But our programmer has
> >> no access to SVN and can't upload the patch
> himself and so we once again
> >> stand in front of a block: ThomasV is not willing
> to accept this patch
> >> (which probably means that even if our programmer
> would be able to update
> >> the code ThomasV would revert the patch).
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think this patch is a good solution. Ideally the
> German community
> > should have a developer of its own, to help
> de-Wikisource in the same
> > way ThomasV helps en-Wikisource. Have you asked
> ThomasV if he would
> > apply (or at least not revert) the patch?
> >
> > Communities should avoid forking when possible,
> because this brings
> > many problems (such as needing to worry about
> stability, hosting, ads,
> > funding, brand recognition, trademarking, etc) while
> removing many
> > advantages (such as benefiting from Wikimedia
> developers, sysadmins,
> > fundraisers, interwiki linking, brand recognition,
> etc). Another
> > consideration is that if the German Wikisource forked,
> it could no
> > longer call itself "Wikisource" since that name is
> owned by the
> > Wikimedia Foundation. The community would also need to
> find its own
> > developers anyway, when those persons could have
> gained SVN access
> > with Wikimedia without all the problems associated
> with forking.
> >
> > --
> > Yours cordially,
> > Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikisource-l mailing list
> > Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>




_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l