Jimmy Wales wrote:
There is no reason to think that the current group of people involved in Wikipedia would do any of that, but we must plan for the longterm, for what might happen 50 or 100 years from now, after we are all gone. Institutional decisions made today have ramifications many many years into the future, especially if we are not cautious.
You are absolutely right. But I find it quite funny that in all your future scenarios the American foundation are always the good guys, while you fear the international ones might only want to make money out of the project. I can imagine other scenarios, for example a take-over of the American foundation with the help of many faked accounts is much more easy than in the German "e.V." where only "real" people are allowed to vote.
I can understand your concerns, but please try to imagine that many people on the international Wikipedias have exactly the same kind of concerns about the American foundation.
We need a system of Checks and Balances: The foundation should be able to control the national organisations, and in return they should be able to control the foundation. Elian proposed that a contract should be formulated with obligations for both sides, but I think this is a long process and the signing of course can only take place after the association is founded.
I'll now take a look at isoc.de, thanks for the hint, Lars.
(BTW, I missed the public discussion of the foundation's bylaws. Where did it take place?)
Kurt