Having followed the recent discussions from the sidelines (and
speaking as a longtime volunteer), I found the various appeals to
principles such as decentralization and subsidiarity somewhat
Of course BirgitteSB is absolutely correct in that there is a strong
consensus that content curation on Wikimedia projects should be a
decentralized activity. However, the websites where all these global
volunteers scroll through these recent changes are hosted by one
central entity, which also concentrates the legal responsibilities
that this entails. And there seems to be an equally strong consensus
that such a centralized solution is best for this particular problem.
It would seem that most other movement activities fall somewhat
inbetween these two extremes.
Alos, let's not forget that chapters themselves can be perceived as a
means to centralize and professionalize certain activities in a
country or region.
2011/8/9 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin
This is all very true, and very insightful; but
what does it have to do with
That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from
their perspective, so recentralising fundraising.
foundation-l mailing list