[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results

[David Gerard]

2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness <surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com>:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness <surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com>:

>>> got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what
>>> we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a fork of
>>> the project. Tying this into the Guardian article, maybe a fork would
>>> protect us somewhat from the fears it provokes.

>> Yes. Paradoxically, forkability can protect from actual forking.

> God forbid I was actually raising it as a "put up or shut up".


*cough* I didn't mean it as that at all. I'm speaking from open source
project examples, and content/code forks such as LiveJournal - where
incompetent forks (GreatestJournal, InsaneJournal) didn't take the
pressure off LJ, but a competent fork, DreamWidth, seems to have made
life much better for all concerned, and code is being shared and so
forth and relations are good.

Forkability is IMO a drastically important thing to preserving all our
work here. My blog post from two years ago on the subject (update
numbers per Moore's Law):

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/


- d.