2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
I'd say allowing people to re-use our content under CC-BY-SA is the primary reason. Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is an added bonus (is there really much out there that we would want to use? There's some, sure, but I doubt there's enough to be worth the hassle of relicensing for it).
There's lots, and many large projects have chosen to adopt CC-BY-SA as a standard license:
http://www.eoearth.org/ http://www.eofcosmos.org/ http://eol.org/ (for some content) http://wikieducator.org/ , e.g. cool stuff like http://wikieducator.org/Biology_in_elementary_schools http://en.citizendium.org/
and countless "open learning / open education" projects. Much of it may be more relevant for Wikibooks / Wikiversity, but there's nevertheless large amounts of textual content under CC-BY-SA out there that we may want to use. And that's just the English language world.
The proposed re-licensing solution is meant to make it frictionless to get stuff out of WP into these projects and vice versa. Any solution that doesn't do so misses the point. IMO long-term FDL compatibility is the "added bonus".