In a message dated 3/14/2008 7:31:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wilydoppelganger@gmail.com writes:
Perhaps his only remaining 'de jure' authority is to appoint or de-appoint ArbCom members. But somebody here or there may be aware of others. As for open rebellion - not without the foundation's support. Can't just occupy the servers. ;)>>
---------------------------------------------------- And contrariwise. If the community was up-in-arms about something, the foundation could not stop the natural progression of that *something*. No matter what physical equipment they own.
Physical possession is no longer 9/10ths of the law, when 9/10ths of the asset is non-physical.
Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Similar comment to the other bureaucracy-increasing proposal on Foundation-l - Wikipedia/Wikimedia has a specific mission, which doesn't include experimental governance. To the extent that community management is necessary to preserve and promote the mission, we have it. The institutions we have are open to modification by consensus, but creating whole new classes of institutions as an end run is not a solution for those who perceive a problem. So my question is this: In what way to Advisory Councils, Ombudsmen Commissions, Volunteer Councils, etc. actually aid the encyclopedia or any other aspect of the Wikimedia mission? By directing the obsessively bureaucratic into a special circle of hell, so that the rest of us can be left alone? (That never works, Hell tries to set the rules).
Nathan
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:03 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/14/2008 7:31:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
wilydoppelganger@gmail.com writes:
Perhaps his only remaining 'de jure' authority is to appoint or
de-appoint ArbCom members. But somebody here or there may be aware of others. As for open rebellion - not without the foundation's support.
Can't just occupy the servers. ;)>>
And contrariwise. If the community was up-in-arms about something, the foundation could not stop the natural progression of that *something*. No matter what physical equipment they own.
Physical possession is no longer 9/10ths of the law, when 9/10ths of the asset is non-physical.
Will Johnson
The closest historical parallel is probably Spanish Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Libre, which suggests that your assertion here is simply false. Of course, it's not a perfect parallel and is somewhat dated. But in the end, yes, anyone who's unhappy has only the rights to leave and fork. The community will never be so single voiced that the foundation would be left with naught but the world's eighth most visited website (which is not such a bad parting gift).
WilyD