Hoi, Such separate hostings and ownership would not be that much of a risk to the WMF. The challenges will be first and foremost with the separatists; then again it is firmly their choice. There will be benefits on both sides as well. The community that remains with the WMF will lose all of the separatists and they will sadly see some of them go. It will allow for the influx of new people and new ideas. The people that go will get a reality check; they will find out to what extend the things they fought battles over are actually worth it. I am sure that both communities will benefit.
When the people who talk about going their own way rethink their stance and start considering the other side of the coin it may lead to an equilibrium. However, the Visual Editor is not the only thing that will change the look and feel there is so much more happening and at that, a single community only considering its own is in effect a cul de sac.
When numbers of readers are to be our main worry, it should be obvious by now that both for editing and reading they are happening on the mobile, the tablet. This is were our new readers are happening. Maybe not necessarily in Europe but certainly in the global south. They have by definition a different mode of operandi and consequently much of our current bickering is only distracting from putting our efforts in welcoming our newbies and building a full fledged environment for them. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 August 2014 09:34, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
WMF update:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am...
Gerard, I agree that a forked wiki could have collaborations with WMF. But having separate hosting and legal ownership would create new headaches and risks. I hope WMF takes a cooperative and democratic approach so that we can work in harmony without forking.
There will almost always be people unhappy with major decisions. We should aim for consensus, not necessarily unanimous decisions. Recently it seemed to me that the consensus was leaning toward beginning a fork for at least DEWP. This is not a small subset of people who are upset with WMF.
Perhaps someone can explain what is so alarming about our readership stats and how MV is likely to improve our readership stats. To me the disappointing active editor stats are the biggest worry.
Thanks, Pine On Aug 26, 2014 3:14 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Actually the issue is no longer only that. It is also very much about
how a
subset of people high jack the conversation by their uncompromising
stance.
When they feel they might leave, I personally prefer it when they stop their posturing and decide either way.
When they want to stay, they do not need to be welcomed, they are part of us. When they go, they are welcome and they can take with them everything we have in the sense of data and software. It is then for them to show
that
their proof is in their pudding. In the mean time WMF will continue to engage in best practices both technically and socially and when they cook something nice, what is on offer is there for the eating as well.
As far as I am concerned, put up or shut up.
It has been advertised widely that bugs will be squashed. It is also advertised widely that changes will be considered as long as they are reasonable and do not interfere with our prime directive. Again, it is about the readers not super users. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 August 2014 11:16, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is not just that individual users may want to opt out, it's whether it should be activated by default for readers. There is also
the
matter of licensing information.
I'm not aware of where "thermonuclear was was threatened". There were,
and
continues to be, discussion about forking. MV is merely the latest occurrence of products with major problems being pushed into production
and
made default. That needs to be addressed, and the fact that the
problems
with MV happened after AFT5 and VE *and* after the creation of the Engineering Community Liaisons suggests deep, long-term problems with product development. I believe that Lila said that the Board wants her
to
transform WMF and I am glad that there seems to be agreement that
Product
will be an early subject of transformation. I have reservations about forking for reasons that I can explain if necessary. It would be a lot easier if WMF would transform itself, starting with Product, and Lila appears to intend to make this happen. I hope that the processes for Product will be democratic and consensus-based. Grantmaking has already demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based decision making with
FDC
and IEGCom, and I hope to see a similar model emerge for Product. If it doesn't, there is enough anger in the community, especially on DEWP,
that a
fork is possible. The community is smart enough collectively to figure
out
a way to make a fork happen, and some of us have been discussing the mechanics of how this would work. We could do it, but reforming WMF is preferable. I hope that Lila can and will do this. Internal
transofmration
is preferable to replacing WMF.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe