As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't come out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects (note: this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). When we launch a new language, it is fairly trivial to add a new subdomain, launch a new instance of the software, and run. However, when a new project (ie: Wikinews, Wikispecies) is launched, the Board must remain involved. This is due to fiduciary responsibilities (purchasing of the new domain name) and brand responsibilities (new trademark to handle).
-Chad
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/13 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time...
I omitted to include a conclusion here. Ooops.
What we need to do is to actually figure out what governing *needs* done - what issues aren't getting decided now that need thrashed out?
- and then work out why it is our existing structures don't let us do
that.
Simply arguing over which new theoretical structure we should install on top of what we already have is doomed to failure, because we're arguing in a vacuum...
The greatest needs for governance would in my opinion would be developing policy for new languages and new projects (or, possibly, merging projects).
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l