2011/8/15 David Richfield
<davidrichfield(a)gmail.com>om>:
It's not just financial collapse. When Sun
was acquired by Oracle and
they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork
the project - take the codebase and run with it. It's not that easy
for Wikipedia, and we want to make sure that it remains doable, or
else the Foundation has too much power over the content community.
Let me make it clear that I currently am happy with the Foundation,
and don't see a fork as necessary. If the community has a problem
with the board at any point, we can elect a new one. If things
change, however, and it becomes clear that the project is being
jeopardised by the management, we need a plan C.
Pretty much. It's not urgent - I do understand we're chronically
underresourced - but I think it's fairly obvious it's a Right Thing,
and at the very least something to keep in the back of one's mind.
So you're worried about a policy change? What sort of policy change
specifically would necessitate forking the project? Is there any such
policy change which could plausibly be implemented by the Foundation
while it remains a charity?
I'm just trying to evaluate the scale of the risk here. The amount of
resources that we need to spend on this should be proportional to the
risk.
-- Tim Starling