Michael Bimmler wrote:
On 9/6/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
(...) That sort of thing.
And why can't this be open to the community as well? You know, the wiki principle (at least that's what I thought), is "keep everything transparent which does not need to be secret". The aims of this list as described by you do not seem to need any special privacy/secret status. Michael
You know, I did not want to address this on this list, but it appears I will have to in order for folks to get it.
Business 101
1. Businesses have goals with involve creating revenue and positive growth, in almost all ways identical to the communities eventual goals. 2. Businesses are protected by laws and have legal obligations to their customers, partners, the Foundation, and other entities and they MUST comply with and protect the rights of these parties. 3. Businesses make decisions based upon goals which are designed to promote their objectives. 4. Wikipedia centric businesses would be expected to have goals which promote wikipedia content in education, business, and attempt to promote the spread of Wikipedia's pervasive content and create opportunties to grow Wikipedia in a positive financial growth model to create and support new communities and expand the power and reach of the existing communities. 5. The goals of the Community will be expected to be at odds with the goals of financial growth at times. 6. The community is in fact an "entity" of sorts, separate and distinct from the Foundation, and any business ventures which attempt to promote its goals. 7. Businesses and ventures promoting Wikipedia will have a fiduciary duty to protect the investments of the Foundation and any investors funding such efforts. 8. Millions of dollars may in time be invested in such endeavors. 9. When a faction of the community decides it does not like a particular business venture or someone involved, and resorts to disruptive behavior or other actions to derail or interfere with the Foundations projects in the real world, it's not disruption, it's "tortious inteference" and it's actionable will expose the foundation and community to problems with investors or stakeholders in these efforts. In other words, it would call into conflict a balancing of the ventures fiduciary duty vs. their stated goals in support of the community iteself. Many ventures would simply back away and make a decision dealing with the Community is too great a business risk and simply stop supporting it or fork Wikipedia and try to steam roller over the Foundation. This is not condusive to positive growth or the ultimate goal of promoting Wikipedia and creating opporunities for explosive growth for the foundation. 10. Companies do not make agreements with anonymous email accounts on gmail or accounts on Wikipedia, they make agreements with organized entities and identifiable indivduals and stake holders. 11. A business related list would be a good venue. Certainly, the community could provide input, but such a list would need moderation by a representative of the Foundation, not a community member who has no fiduciary duty or responsiblity to the Foundations policies. Community members should ABSOLUTELY be allowed participation as they are the heart and soul of the basic nature of the opporutnities. They should not be running the list or any other element beyond their suggestions and contributions to creating new ventures. In other words, when a non-employee or person without fiduciary duty attempts to disrupt or lobby against such an effort OUTSIDE of FOUNDATION CHANNELs, they are out on a limb and expose all the parties to liablity.
Hope that explains it.
All my love,
Jeff