[Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

[Ray Saintonge]

Samuel Klein wrote:

>>ARTICLE II
>>Section 4. Community.
>>The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
>>throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
>>Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
>>Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.
>>    
>>
>This would be an unfortunate first sentence.  Foundations do not usually 
>acknowledge the contributions of projects they support.  The contributions 
>of donors, perhaps...
>
>More generally : I am surprised to see the term "volunteer" has come to be 
>used in these discussions as a way of distinguishing some contributors 
>form the Foundation; at times in a lightly patronizing context 
>('volunteer' as opposed to 'professional' / 'expert' / 'dedicated')... 
>similar to the way "amateur" has come to mean "dilletante" or "unpaid" 
>rather than "connoisseur".
>
>I expect that Wikipedians of all people have a sense of generativity, 
>active creation, and public responsibility which transcends the notion of 
>'volunteering' for a cause.
>
>When one returns home to fix the plumbing in a parents' house, does one 
>call it "volunteering"?  No.  Participating in a barn-raising for a 
>neighbor, or rebuilding one's own community after a storm?  Likewise no. 
>Neither is it "volunteering" to create part of a public art project, tend 
>a community garden, write the biography of a hero, or spending an evening 
>in language-exchange.
>
>Wikipedians "contributing" to the public store of knowledge are simply 
>doing for their own global community what most people on the planet should 
>come to do -- sharing what they know, and helping others do the same.
>
My objections are to the whole section.  That would not be fixed by 
semantic variations on the word "volunteer"

>>Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
>>Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
>>on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
>>    
>>
>A pity, for a foundation with as much promise as this one has to change 
>the world.
>
>>The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
>>Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
>>garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. 
>>
>Right.
>
These are the important distinctions if we are ever to avoid being 
overrun by corporatism.

>>The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
>>expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
>>volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
>>because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
>>discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
>>to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
>>business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
>>citizens all over the world.
>>I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
>>the boiling culture.
>>    
>>
>I wouldn't say "by free-movement organizations and citizens" -- but simply 
>"by individuals" all over the world.  Many people who don't get 'free 
>culture' or 'FOSS' at all, and don't care, get Wikipedia (great project) 
>-- and get *really* interested when they find out the extent to which it
>is guided by a broad and milling community.
>
Yes, it is easy to interpret public perceptions as something more than 
what they are.  Editors who find that things are going well in the 
article set that interests them are not going to feel at all concerned 
with governance issues.  When you raise these philosophical issues with 
them the most intelligent response will be, "Duh?"  If you press them to 
take a stand the results will be unpredictable.  Perhaps I'm a little 
more cynical in saying that they don't give a damn what kind of 
community it comes from.

>>I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
>>would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
>>we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
>>proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
>>volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
>>successful ?
>>    
>>
>Not only successful.  Exuberantly, outrageously successful, orders of 
>magnitude beyond the dreams of the initial participants.  There are 
>subtleties in what has worked here that have never before been effectively 
>explored.  Some are still mysterious, which is why small groups of editors 
>/ meta-editors / policy writers often have trouble tapping them as needed 
>to work on specific projects.
>
Definitely!  A soft stream of air when starting a compfire will 
encourage it to grow.  A hard wind is likely to put it out.

Ec