I am not sure if your wording implies that I am being excessively negative or skeptical. But yes, I very definitely think it should be resisted at every stage of implementation. What else can we do, if the people who should be providing services to us, try to run things for us. the community is sometimes wrong; the board is sometimes right. I would rather go wrong with the community , than right with the board.T, there is no other way of preserving the values of independence and spontaneity which are the essence of our projects. The distinctiveness of Wikipedia is that we are a community-directed project, and no person or group--even groups of our own choosing-- has the authority to lead us. There are no doubt limitations of what such a mode of organization can achieve, but we are here to see how far we can get with this way of working; we have already gotten further than anyone could have predicted, and perhaps we can get much further. I do not have the knowledge to formally speculate about social organization. But what I do know is that we have an idea, and we should pursue it as far as it can take us. Perhaps conventional wisdom is wrong, and we can maintain ourselves as we originally intended. The idea is very simple, and classic: trust the community; trust each other; do not trust any organized group withing us or speaking for us. On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: