Yes, maybe there is need for something like Chapcom for projects?
----- Original Message ---- From: Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:38:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't come out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects (note: this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). When we launch a new language, it is fairly trivial to add a new subdomain, launch a new instance of the software, and run. However, when a new project (ie: Wikinews, Wikispecies) is launched, the Board must remain involved. This is due to fiduciary responsibilities (purchasing of the new domain name) and brand responsibilities (new trademark to handle).
-Chad
Of course, the Board must be involved in new projects. That doesn't mean, though, that there' isn't room for a greater community role in this process.
Thanks, Pharos
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote: >> 2008/5/13 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com: >> >> >> > The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity >> > between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply >> > naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time... >> >> I omitted to include a conclusion here. Ooops. >> >> What we need to do is to actually figure out what governing *needs* >> done - what issues aren't getting decided now that need thrashed out? >> - and then work out why it is our existing structures don't let us do >> that. >> >> Simply arguing over which new theoretical structure we should install >> on top of what we already have is doomed to failure, because we're >> arguing in a vacuum... > > The greatest needs for governance would in my opinion would be > developing policy for new languages and new projects (or, possibly, > merging projects). > > Thanks, > Pharos >
> foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, maybe there is need for something like Chapcom for projects?
No, we already have a way to make new projects. Proposals for new projects are made on Meta-Wiki and if they are convincing enough, the *community* will comment that they really want this project and the board has the final approval. Langcom handles the individual language requests through specific criteria.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, maybe there is need for something like Chapcom for projects?
No, we already have a way to make new projects. Proposals for new projects are made on Meta-Wiki and if they are convincing enough, the *community* will comment that they really want this project and the board has the final approval. Langcom handles the individual language requests through specific criteria.
Langcom handles individual language requests efficiently. The problem is, that Langcom, which for most purposes has an effective membership of two, is also setting language policy, and the two active members disagree profoundly on the most contentious issues ("extinct" and constructed languages), and there is no mechanism for community input other than attempts at personal persuasion.
Jesse and Gerard mean very well, and work hard, but I do think that setting the broad language policy should be up to the community at large.
Thanks, Pharos
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org