On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.dewrote:
Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
[...] The WMF as a membership organisation would be great, but I don't
think
it is practical. A better option (which I have discussed with a few poeple) would be having the chapters as members of the WMF and the community as members of the chapters. There are other global non-profits that work along those lines. (The International
Federation
of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, for example.)
Why? What's broken at the moment?
The English full-history dump, for one.
And that would work if the WMF were a membership organiza- tion? Interesting.
Tim
If it were once again a membership organization it would imply that the Foundation had not reneged on the original vision without the ability of the community, which approved that vision, to provide input on the modified input. It would turn around the Foundation's usurping of community power. It would give each community member a voice.
Sorry, "input" is an overloaded word for me due to my occupation in neural networks. I happen to be working with several "input layers" right now and flubbed that entirely ;) But it should say, "to provide input on the modified vision."