[Foundation-l] How not to manage opensource project

[Ray Saintonge]

As ever I am in profound sympathy with Anthere's analyses, if only 
because I believe that she is one whose views have been shaped by the 
principles that underlay the development of Wikipedia, and not by the 
vagaries that accompany unrestricted growth.

Jimbo has been the inspiration without which this process would never 
have succeded.  His tireless role as spokesfather has resulted in a 
popularity for Wikipedia that knows few rivals. and all that growth has 
evolved from a few fundamental concepts into a daughter of whom he can 
be justly proud.  This precocious daughter has grown faster than anyone 
might have expected; she has been exposed to ideas that were not put 
there by her father.  That makes it more difficult for a father to 
protect that daughter to the extent that he believes she should be.  As 
the long list of suitors lines up at the door the uncertainty grows.  
The best solution then will be to trust her to carry on with the values 
that he taught her, and that she will someday let him hold the 
grandchildren.

I do not view Jimbo as a person captivated by details, or as one who 
could sit at length unravelling legal minutiae, or as a person who could 
dwell on the niceties that distinguish between "help and support" and 
"manage and govern".  Other people do.  That range of visions goes from 
the seemingly anarchic view that a few principles stand above all else 
to the other extreme that attaches priority to a well run and well 
organized machinery.  Together they must find the neutral point that 
works best with all the appropriate checks and balances.  Such a theme 
and such a dynamic has been at the heart of all the major internal 
disputes that Wikipedia has faced.

Governance for the kind of entity that has built up brings us into a lot 
of uncharted territory.  There are no guidelines for such a massive 
loosely connected organism that spans almost the entire world.  Imposing 
a paternalistic corporate structure is not going to do much for assuring 
and trusting that it can evolve an appropriate form of governance. 

Ec

Anthere wrote:

>There is a discussion on the french wikipedia, precisely on this topic. 
>I invite you to have a look here : 
>http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo
>
>One of our contributor raised the issue over what the bylaws say
>"The goal of the Wikimedia foundation is to develop and maintain open 
>content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those 
>projects to the public free of charge."
>
>And what Jimbo says
>"Of course the foundation governs and manages the projects."
>--Jimbo Wales 07:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
>
>As far as I (as a board member) is concerned, I consider the Foundation 
>to be there to "support" the projects. Absolutely not to govern them.
>By support, I mean "provide infrastructure", "provide legal frame", help 
>set up collaborations to collect/create content, help distribution of 
>the content created. Not govern. Not manage.
>
>Some editors try to push us in "governing the project", and I can not 
>blame them. When decisions are tough to take collectively, it is quite 
>easy to ask a small group of people to take the responsability of making 
>a decision.
>But imho, pretty often, this should not be the job of the Foundation.
>
>The problem with this is that one of the board members (Jimbo) not only 
>is on the board, but also the foundator and for the english wikipedia 
>the visionary/leader guy. Quite naturally, Jimbo has a lot of influence 
>on how things are organised and on policies. This influence is much more 
>limited in non english languages. The enwikipedia is governed by Jimbo 
>because it accepts to be governed. But it is not governed by the board.
>
>Seems like just "chatting" to you ? Seems not important ?
>
>Then, give a thought to editors trying to publish a wikijunior on 
>internet (activity plainly allowed by our licence), to see it removed 
>within 24 hours after announcement on this very list.
>
>Then, just quietly think of the future you want (before pushing the 
>validation button on the board vote).
>