Message-ID: e692861c0606090944s42fcc73fk2954121566648988@mail.gmail.com Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:44:34 - Gregory Maxwell wrote:
==================== Quote ==================== ................ I usually hate me too, but Kelly really hit the mark with her comment here. It is unreasonable to expect any board to undertake the daily operation of the organization and the perceived need to select people suitable for daily chores will just end up compelling us to select people who are unsuitable for driving our long term mission.
We are not the only charitable organization in the world, yet we seem to know so little of what has been earned by others. ... But what else should we expect from a group with tens of thousands of participants which still has substantial difficulty getting 40 man hours a week applied to resolving problems which are bringing us into disrepute in international news. To get something as simple as libel patrolling going we need to be slammed on three news networks, have unilateral staff action which is met with widespread whining, and we must receive a personal appeal from god^WJimbo... and still we still do a fairly weak job. ================== END Quote ==================
I salute Mr. Maxwell for highlighting two important issues in a way we can all find useful. His 1st paragraph is appreciated for its insights into the poster himself, and also for his perspective on board related issues. It's the 2nd paragraph, however, that is the focus of this post.
Again, the only benefits I see in persistently placing WMF projects under the traditional umbrella of charitable organizations are largely all negative. It's NOT that you've fail to be charitable. But to the contrary, you've literally redefined charity - raising the very concept to a whole new plateau. And its due to this -a whole new dimension of dignity- that there is no practical purpose to be served by aligning yourselves with mere redistribution networks. What the nonprofit pontiffs have to teach you pales in comparison to what you could learn from your own strengths. Because -unlike them- you are the antithesis of their zero sum games.
Gregory then alludes to the libel theme (as covered by Erik 20 hours earlier) and effectively expresses how ineffectual he feels we are handling this matter. I for one, can readily relate to his frustrations regarding libel. However, my suspicion is that "something as simple as libel patrolling" may require a bit more than "40 man hours a week" effort. Moreover, IMHO hours have nothing to do with the crux of the problem (otherwise, our "tens of thousands of participants" would have largely solved it). For unlike a sense for quality -which is universally innate to the human spirit- "libel" is an manufactured artificial legal concept. Its successful defense is a case by case issue with a different complex rule set for each country. In other words we're well equipped to freely produce clean world class quality product, but the deceptive proprietary world of enigmatic authorities is a closed irrational sphere ill suited for free rational participation.
For some follow-up on this train of thought see subject: 'Muijzenberg #00 - (re)organizing wikimedia'
Z.Clark