Except it's dangerous to assume that such authority cannot be implied in law, even when not expressly granted. From everything I've been reading here we're not at all talking about a group of volunteers who are interested in helping the projects, but rather a group of representatives who are interested in being the voice of the projects to the board, and under some interpretations, having control over the board. That's something that might imply responsibility.
-Dan On Apr 7, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:00 AM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
While this seems at first a good idea, it leaves me wondering about liability. If this council represents the interests and needs of the projects, would its members then be ultimately responsible for the projects? If, for example, someone wants to sue the Bulgarian Wikipedia or the English Wikinews, would they direct their efforts to the members of said council who represent its "interests and needs"? The WMF has always claimed that it is not a publisher and it is, therefore, not responsible for content. Would the same defense hold true of a Project Council?
If you follow the premise that some how self-appointed volunteer "responsibility" (which is so ephemeral as to hardly be an appropriate use of the word "responsibility") is tied to the legal notion of responsibility. We're not talking about a legal entity with legal authority over the projects, we're talking about a group of volunteers who are interested in helping the projects and communicating with them.
In all this, you can't forget that the WMF board retains ultimate legal control over the projects, and nowhere has there been a suggestion that this legal authority be passed to any other entity, much less the VC.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l