On 16/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:16:27 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience, it's the same in the UK. I think people are failing to consider the fact that while Wikipedia is enormous, the WMF is tiny. Yes, she had the title "COO", but that's because she was the only person in her department, so she had to be in charge of it. There is a big difference between the COO of a large multinational corporation and a solitary bookkeeper of a one-office charity.
But some involved in the foundation would seem to be trying to have things both ways; to expect their organization to be treated as a small private club when that suits them, and have it be treated as a huge multinational operation when *that* suits them.
You appear to be attempting to deny the point that it is in fact both
- it's not a matter of "suits them", it's a matter of which aspect is
relevant. There may be hundreds of thousands of volunteers, but it really is a vanishingly tiny charity office.
Which is about all you need to run a shoestring ISP. When the foundation sticks to being that it generally does okey. It is when it moves beyond that that things become problematical.