On 12 November 2010 08:12, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My only concern is on precedent - is this a good one
(we help others in the
free knowledge/education world) or a bad one (our bandwidth is open to be
used by any forum or website with a story to tell). Would perception and
reporting in the media that we altruistically can help others (positive
views) or that we take over or dominate others (even if untrue, negative
views)? is there any risk that it would be seen as compromising our stance
and neutrality ("Wikipedia hosts/hosted Citizendium!)
The precedent sounds good to me, actually. In this case, it's helping
a wiki that is not only completely in line with our mission, but is
presently in dire need.
For comparison, let's say OpenStreetMap suddenly went broke. I'd say
that in such a hypothetical case, hosting them would be not merely a
good thing to do, but the right thing to do.
More general hosting of other organisations - the comparison would be
- would be new, and we'd need the technical human
resources, which are barely keeping up with our own needs. (Which is
why it's good in this case that CZ's techies are eminently competent.)
But that's different from helping an organisation with comparable
goals that happens to be in dire present need.
For all these reasons I'd want clarity and
openness on the various "what
ifs" and how they are agreed to be handled, in a way that all can see that a
prior and mutually endorsed decision process was followed in that
CZ now has a management council and an Editor in Chief (Daniel
Mietchen), so there is someone who can actually decide such things and
work out the deal. Though as I noted, it's unclear who owns the name
"Citizendium," for example.