[Foundation-l] How not to manage opensource project

[Anthere]

Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
> 
>>As far as I (as a board member) is concerned, I consider the Foundation 
>>to be there to "support" the projects. Absolutely not to govern them.
>>By support, I mean "provide infrastructure", "provide legal frame", help 
>>set up collaborations to collect/create content, help distribution of 
>>the content created. Not govern. Not manage.
> 
> 
> What you mention here are of course the most important tasks of the 
> foundation. However, my position is a bit different to yours. IMO the 
> foundation has also the duty to step in as an emergency government in 
> case the self government of a projects doesn't work. But this should 
> always be a temporary measure and restricted to single actions.
> 
> I'm thinking here for example of cases like the quran quote in the site 
> notice of the urdu wikipedia. If the community in a wiki acts against 
> the core principles of Wikimedia, for example violates the neutrality, 
> it needs someone external to set it right. Of course this is something 
> which could also be done by the international community except that this 
> is not a body with any authority but a bunch of loosely connected 
> individuals with diverse opinions.

Oh, yes. I absolutely agree with you.
But note that it is not see much "governing" that "ensuring that the 
basic principles of our projects" are respected. It is not setting up 
new rules, but an ultimate barrier of protection. See the Foundation as 
a mom rather than a dad :-)



>>Some editors try to push us in "governing the project", and I can not 
>>blame them. When decisions are tough to take collectively, it is quite 
>>easy to ask a small group of people to take the responsability of making 
>>a decision.
>>But imho, pretty often, this should not be the job of the Foundation.
> 
> 
> And in rare cases, it should be - or the foundation decides to delegate 
> these cases to a "Wiki Emergency response team" (WERT ;-) which takes 
> care of cases like
> * HELP, all sysops of our Wikipedia are quitting and there is a big 
> fight over the ban of an editor!!!
> * Why disturb readers of our Wiki with a sitenotice about some 
> irrelevant board elections? Let's rather display the football results there
> * We want to know more about our readers - let's just record every page 
> view on an external logfile via the global javascript...
> * ...
> 
> This team could take over the task individual board members do now: find 
> out what's going on, talk to the involved parties, try to moderate 
> conflicts and find solutions.
> 
> 
>>The problem with this is that one of the board members (Jimbo) not only 
>>is on the board, but also the foundator and for the english wikipedia 
>>the visionary/leader guy. Quite naturally, Jimbo has a lot of influence 
>>on how things are organised and on policies. This influence is much more 
>>limited in non english languages. The enwikipedia is governed by Jimbo 
>>because it accepts to be governed. But it is not governed by the board.
> 
> 
> good explanation.
> 
> 
>>Seems like just "chatting" to you ? Seems not important ?
>>
>>Then, give a thought to editors trying to publish a wikijunior on 
>>internet (activity plainly allowed by our licence), to see it removed 
>>within 24 hours after announcement on this very list.
> 
> 
> Could you be a bit less cryptic here, please, and explain what you are 
> refering to?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_talk:Publication_of_the_Month
Should explain it. Ask Robert for more if necessary.

But let me just give a few word to talk about a fear I have. It is just 
a fear right now, but I feel we are rather heading in that direction, 
rather than not.

The content is produced with in mind, maximum reusability. If, to 
publish the content, editors have to previously obtain the authorization 
of the Foundation, then, we are failing our goals. If to publish the 
content, publishers have to pay the Foundation indirectly, for the use 
of the brand, we are failing our goals. Of course, the brand is a pretty 
cool way for the Foundation to monetize the content, hence to support 
the projects. But it should not impair reusability.

So, I'd say, when a group of editors try to publish a wikijunior on 
which *they* have given hundreds of hours, for which *they* are authors 
and which *they* publish purposefully under a free licence, immediatly 
taking down the printed wikijunior 
(http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-July/008191.html) 
without prior discussion, strike me as being a move preventing precisely 
what the licence meant our projects to be. I'll mention it even more 
confortably that at that point, Wikijunior was not a trademark of the 
Foundation (Brad has since then started the registration).

I am bordering a situation where I am meeting an ethical limitation. As 
a board member, I am supposed to be fully dedicated to the foundation 
and to support it to the best of my abilities. Loyalty. So, in this 
case, to "protect" the brand we do not own yet, and which could need to 
be protected to prevent anyone from monetizing it later in the future.

On the other hand, my heart is more in the projects themselves, which I 
believe were set up so that the content could be reused, which involved 
printing. In which case, removing the wikibooks from Lulu, until 
discussion and agreement has been made with the Foundation... is clearly 
perceived as a move preventing publishing and reuse. Hence against our 
original mission.

Where should my loyalty stand ? How to assume the fact that if Robert et 
al went an agreement from the Foundation, they are likely to wait 
"months" before getting it. How to accept the fact the authors 
themselves might have the PAY for the right to publish a work THEY wrote 
and offered as a common good ? And how to accept the fact that one 
person has the power to simply prevent publishing the work done by 
others, by a simple email ?

(PS: I know that later explanations were that the take down notice given 
to Lulu was meant to be because of a mix in who was author and 
responsable. But I also know this was the explanation given afterwards. 
If you look at the original email, it was taken down because of the 
brand use).

I hope this clarify my crytic comment :-)
I didnot think it was cryptic myself.


> greetings,
> elian