On Monday 07 October 2002 12:03 pm, Eclecticology wrote:
....but the PR advantage of having no single nation able to control the project would be tremendous.
Now that you put it that way I completely agree.
There already appears to be a consensus about having the project in a non-profit corporation. That's a little past pre-planning. It opens up a whole lot of questions about corporate structure and what would go into the constitution and by-laws. What would be the most appropriate jurisdiction for incorporation? How many directors should there be? What constitutes a meeting of directors when those directors are scattered around the world? How do we insure maximum accessibility to members for corporate decision making, while protecting the vision and investment that went into the project in the first place, and at the same time maintaining enough flexibility in our rules so that the rules themselves don't bring the whole thing to a screeching halt? Etc., etc., etc.,
Point taken. These are very good questions that need to be worked out on the mailing lists and on Metapedia. A good thing to do would be to copy your questions into a Metapedia page and then we can go from there.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)