Gordon Joly wrote:
At 22:41 +0100 6/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sure, I read that (should have pointed that out, sorry). However, all it says is "we're going to set up a company (limited by guarentee) to do stuff related to a set of objectives that are still freely editable by anyone".
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm certainly a big fan of openness and community led developments. However, I'm also realistic (and reasonably knowledgable) about what it takes to create a succesful social enterprise.
Either the above linked document has less detail than exists in the minds of the people on this list, or the cart is, at present, before the horse.
It's a chapter of the foundation, it will do the same sorts of things as others chapters do. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Summaries for some ideas about what that includes. I really don't get why everyone is making such a big deal about having a list of objectives when we all know what chapters do, this isn't a new concept.
Indeed.
Wikimedia Deutschland, founded in June 2004, was the first Wikimedia chapter. It has more than 400 members, an office with 1.5 full time employees, and an annual budget of ~300k EUR.
Wikimedia UK v1 failed and it wasn't a new concept then either.
I don't want to throw oil on the fire. I wasn't around then and my next line is not intended to open up wounds, but I have to ask it (rhetorically at this point, I hope that candidate statements will address this important quesiton clearly and concisely)...
Is there to be a repeat of past errors here?
I'll switch back to lurking mode and try and decide how to vote when the time comes.
Ross