Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly - Wikimedia-l

14 May 2008


      I am talking about after the fact support, like Chapcom provides to chapters.
----- Original Message ----
From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com
To: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:42:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
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@gmail.com wrote:
...
2008/5/14 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
...
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*). [...]
More to the point, it'd be overkill to do it any other way
We create new projects very rarely - let's look at the past list.
2001 - Wikipedia
2002 - Wiktionary
2003 - Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource
2004 - *Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews
2005 - [nothing]
2006 - Wikiversity
2007 - [nothing]
2008 - [nothing so far]
That's a total of nine projects (omitting incubator and meta, as not
really standalone projects) - and of those nine, only *one* was
founded in the last three and a half years.
Because we draw the definitions of our projects so widely, it is
generally fairly unlikely that a lot more will come along that we want
to do, and which we can't subsume into an existing project - it's
unlikely we'll create a Wikirecipies or a Wikilaw or what have you -
and so whilst I certainly don't rule out there being more, I don't
imagine we'll see many of them.
Why develop a lot of policy, a lot of structure and committees and so
on, for something that's likely to only be meaningful once every five
years or so? We can handle it by the traditional methods - a bunch of
enthusiasts get together, make a case, get more people, take it to the
Board - if and when it becomes necessary.
It may not be efficient or ideologically tidy, but it certainly beats
wasting our time creating a committee that never does anything :-)
--

Andrew Gray

andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

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