Jeff V. Merkey wrote: I believe this is a poor line of reasoning for a bad idea. The foundation has certain goals, and these are not always realised by the community at large, nor must they all deal with the responsibility, fine details, or the work involved in making sure the project stays afloat. By and large, the goals of the community and those of the foundation coincide though, helped by the transparency and (certain amounts of) openness. I am very concerned at your implication (in point 9) that nondisruptive efforts to suggest that some arrangements are not acceptable to the community should be easily overruled by the business interests of the foundation. The "Explosive growth" you say should be our goal is dangerous in the same way that cancer is -- it can easily become a perversion of our hopes and structure in the name of size. We must be careful about growth and absolutely insistent on as much openness and inclusiveness as possible, even when it costs us business opportunities. I am similarly very disturbed at your point 11, which suggests that off-list lobbying against proposed business ventures is something that we should consider verboten or dangerous. --- Pat Gunn mod: csna, bmcm, bmco, cooa, cona, clpd, coom http://dachte.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l