- you make a judgment call as to whether the change is
controversial, - you are prepared to accept a revert and face discussion.
These are two elements which were clearly missing from your changes, and the attempts at discussion after.
There are currently 5 people supporting the creation of an Open English edition of Wikinews, which is obviously not entirely due to the recent differences regarding the DPL. Like any community at en.wikinews there are different opinions as to what the goals of the project may be, and some members of the community feel it is not going someplace they wish to continue to support.
People leave the English Wikipedia all the time. We don't set up an "Open English Wikipedia" because of that. I will not enumerate the many, many reasons why doing so in the case of Wikinews would be a bad idea. My suggestion is this: If you do not want to work with the existing Wikinews community, then please do set up your Open Newswiki as a separate site. I provide wiki hosting at reasonable rates, if you are interested ;-). So does Gabriel Wicke.
I thank you for your offer, but I choose my hosting based on support.
As you have so eloquently argued in the past, Wikinews is not Wikipedia. What qualifies for inclusion as current events should be more broad, because the focus is *now*. Like the media sources which preceded it, en.Wikinews is developing an approach or personality on the news which restricts what it will cover and determines how it will cover those events. This is not necessarily a bad development, but it should give rise to the corrollary: the option for another media source to cover the events which are not being written about, with a different approach to news.
I have already joined the Wikinews Future Talk. I have begun the discussion on the talk page. It seems no one else is interested in writing about the topics in the wiki.
Amgine