For a long long time it has been the operative assumption that the Wikimedia Foundation carries the legal liability, and if things go really really badly wrong, the foundation would sacrifice itself, so the community, and the content itself could continue elsewhere. There has however been gradual development of the foundations structures in two ways that seem to indicate that this operative assumption (not being anywhere formally enunciated, except in the tangible fact of working under the GFDL) may not last forever. Firstly there is the building of increasingly robust defensive bulwarks against litigation and other forms that the foundation could be seriously harmed. This is something which is clearly an unequivocal good in what ever operative assumption the Foundation labors under, and should continue no matter what. The question on this front rather is, whether there exists now, or will exist in the foreseeable future, a sufficient level of robustness for these defenses that the need to keep the Foundation as expendable, discardable isn't relevant anymore from a standpoint of necessity? The other facet of the question is the speed at which the organs of the foundation develop into integral parts of how our whole greater endeavour operates. Note I am not saying indispensible in the sense that those particular organs are locked into place (we are a long way from that yet), but integral in the sense that should the highly unlikely eventuality of having to start again occur (as the GFDL allows), _something_ would have fill their functions in the operation of the restarted endeavour. The problem (or non-problem, as the facts may obtain) here lies on what philosophy do we adopt toward this earlier operative assumption of sacrificability? Do we find on reflection, that we have already crossed the Rubicon, that although theoretically the work could be restarted elsewhere, the disruption would be high enough, that it is wisest to abandon all worry about the possibility of sacrificing the Foundation, and concentrate on making the Foundation functional without regard to what things it might lock us into, and speed up construction of legal and other defensive bulwarks into a kind of Fortress Wikimedia Foundation? Or should we seriously consider examining every new thing the Foundation takes onto its plate, making doubly sure that it is something that would compromise our ability to just chuck the Foundation away like the tail of a lizard, and trust we will have the resources to grow a new tail, there being no vital organs in it. Or can someone in one swift stroke demonstrate that all the above is entirely inconsequential? For me, that would be a great relief, and good enough. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the September 2006 elections.