On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

Part of the reason to keep it as it is: A) It happens so rarely, a committee is hardly called for, and B) The Board needs to be involved anyway. Thus, community debate followed by Board approval is the best method. It's worked thus far, and I would say it can continue to work. -Chad On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 14/05/2008, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'd say it's a sign of maturity. We have no intention of covering everything, and we already have ways of covering everything we want to. (We have to leave something for Wikia, after all, or how would Jimbo eat? ;))

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard <pathoschild(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" The growth that we need as a vibrant Wikimedia is the addition of new types of reference works to our collections. This is the growth that is stagnating. Now, whether a proposal is eventually implemented as a new wiki, or as a defined "subproject" under an existing wiki (like Wikijunior on Wikibooks or Wikisaurus on Wiktionary), is a different issue. It should, in my opinion, ultimately be a pragmatic decision based on what can form a viable separate wiki. And a few of our existing projects perhaps do not have this type of independent viability. Wikijunior and Wikisaurus, I believe, started as proposals on Meta too. And I believe Meta is the right place for these types of proposals, whether they are eventually implemented as new wikis, or as defined "subprojects" under existing wikis. And for discussion of the possible merging of existing wikis too. Not necessarily in a "community assembly", but certainly in some more developed community structure than we have now. Thanks, Pharos

Pharos wrote: No, it is not. Within each of these nine projects, new encyclopedic articles, new news reports, new books, new quotations are created every day. As well as new categories of encyclopedic articles, new portals, new WikiProjects. Each of these is a "project" in its own right, managed over a long time by one or more individuals. But they don't need their own domain names and logotypes because they are able to fit within the structure of these nine projects. A few proposals have been put forth, that don't fit, e.g. Wikicat and Wikidata, that noone succeeded to bring to reality so far. Some similar open content projects have developed outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, e.g. Wikitravel, WiktionaryZ/Omegawiki, Dbpedia (is this Wikidata?), OpenLibrary (is this Wikicat?), MusicBrainz (like Wikicat for music), and OpenStreetMap. Nothing stops an interest group such as WikiProject Connecticut from working across Wikipedia + Wikisource + Wikiquote + Wikinews + Wikitravel + OpenStreetMap + MusicBrainz. This flexibility is an enourmous strength, compared to a structure where every new project or interest group would have to pass through a centralized approval bottleneck and stay within the Wikimedia Foundation. If you have a really great idea for a new project, you can always start it on your own. Wikitravel did and OpenStreetMap did. I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation is stopping you. Some people prefer to complain about how WMF works instead of starting great projects. Are you among them? How should I know? Instead of starting your annotated bibliography (which might be a good idea) as a new WMF project, perhaps you should start a subproject within OpenLibrary? Who knows if OpenLibrary might merge with WMF in the future. The Wright brothers needed to design their own aircraft to fly less than a mile. I can fly thousands of miles without designing my own aircraft. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: You might add 2005 - Wikimania as a meatspace project. That seems to have worked out well.

Hoi, Why choose exactly one of the few issues where we have a policy? A policy that does what it is designed to do? Why not choose the more thorny issues like how to collaborate between projects. How to deal with vandals who jump from one project to the next. How to improve the usability of Commons. How to help the small projects by mentoring their admins. How to determine the limits of the self determination that is largely there for all projects. How to deal with your freedom, when you want to limit the freedom of others. What are the values that we expect in our projects and how do you allow for the maturity of projects.. What lessons can be learned from policies that are markedly different from the ones you are familiar with.. I agree with Milos that there is sufficient that can be done. So get involved in the things that are not done yet. It is the best way to start because you do not start with confrontation. When there is a working body that has shown its value, we can talk about the start of new projects / languages as well.. Thanks, GerardM On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote: