Ray Saintonge a écrit:
The points that you make are certainly very good in principle. I may question a few details, but that does not detract from the big picture. To receive more comment you needed to say something more controversial. The problem is that most people would agree as I do.
Ah, hummm, right. Good idea. Okay, I'll focus on saying controversial things in the next few weeks then :-) I suppose that is something I could do.
The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the by-laws. Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle. Unfortunately, agreement appears to be the best way to ensure that nothing gets done. The most effective dictators are the ones who do not appear dictatorial. It's been a long time since I read it, but I think that Macchiavelli said something to that effect.. A parent cannot forbid a child's first steps out of a fear that the child could thereby hurt himself. What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for criticism. It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks. Ownership in a project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods. For many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find alternative solutions.
In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it should never emphasize that. Rather it should emphasize a hands off approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling beyond that. That commitment should also be seen as a separate commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the way in which they participate in plain view across the project.
The charter itself should stick to generalities and principles. The principle of openly available knowledge is good, but restricting it to GFDL would not be appropriate even if previous discussions have indicated that we may be stuck with it. The NPOV principle would remain as something for which we strive, without making too fine a point of just what that means. Respect for copyright would remain a principle without undue emphasis on following the letter of the law in all circumstances..
Ec
Shall we make a controversial charter then ?
...ou...après tout...on est chez les fous :-)