Brad Patrick wrote:
Maybe you want to start with defining the term "community". It proved to be not so easy... (And no, the community is not just the subscribers to foundation-l)
That is very easy. The "community" are the users who contribute on all Wikimedia projects.
Jeroenvrp
Hmm, I think you may be missing something pretty important. In fact, the definition of community is the single most difficult thing to agree upon. What is my community, your community, etc. does not have answers. The Board retreat could not answer it with the 25 people who were there. The Board itself cannot agree on the meaning. Certainly, though, you do not have the hubris to think that this thing called Wikimedia exists only for editors, to the exclusion of the millions of people who view it every day? I view the orthodox idea that the community consists of, and can only consist of, editors as being at least as insulting as the opposite would be to Horning. Millions of people *read* the site, and do not contribute a comma. And that's okay! Generators *and* consumers of free culture must be incorporated. If we are philosophically opposed as people who differ on whether a sound is made when a tree falls in forest, so be it.
"Community" is open to definition. It can probably work with any of the definitions given. Then there are communities of communities. Those who work on any specialized WikiProject themselves can be considered as a community.
I can grasp your vision of the wider community that includes the silent majority of readers, but getting them involved is as much if not more of a challenge than getting citizens involved in the electoral process. Meantime, life goes on.
Ec