[Foundation-l] How not to manage opensource project

[Anthere]

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
> 
>>We may use the same words (managing, governing), but these words 
>>do not have the same sense in my country and in yours. Saying 
>>your sense is the "correct" one, while our sense is the "wrong" 
>>one, would be a very wrong approach.
> 
> 
> As long as the discussion is in English, the English meaning of 
> the words is the correct one. 

You are missing the point.
We claim to be an international organisation. Which mean people must 
understand each other. As Delphine explained, there is what person1 mean 
to say, what person1 really say, what person2 hears and what person2 
really understand.

There is no "correct" sense. There is a need for people to have the same 
interpretation of words.


  When the text is translated to
> French, other words that have the same meaning must be chosen. 
> Sorry, I don't speak French so I can't help out with details.
> 
> But in this case, the cultural difference seems to be about how 
> much importance is given to a single word.  I haven't seen the 
> French participants explain exactly which practical problems or 
> consequences they see from Jimbo's statement, or how they suggest 
> he should have phrased it instead.

The mission statement in the bylaws refers to "support". Not to 
governing or managing. If the bylaws statement is incorrect and the 
Foundation is governing the projects, then the statement should be fixed.
I suggest we say the Foundation supports the projects, as the mission 
statement says (and as I think we are really doing).

Without this explanation,
> their apparent anger seems irrational.  Perhaps this is a sign 
> that something else is wrong?  Perhaps they want to be angry?
> 
> In January 2001 Jimbo was careless enough to say Wikipedia might 
> have advertising in the future, or something to that end.  You can 
> of course interpret words such as "advertising", "might" and 
> "future" very differently, but the practical problem is that many 
> would dislike the non-commercial wikipedia.org (then .com) to look 
> like normal commercial websites.  The consequence at that time was 
> that the Spanish user community forked and moved to their own 
> website, not because this problem had occurred, but because they 
> feared it might occur, perhaps in the near future.  (There could 
> of course have been other reasons for the fork, and maybe this 
> statement was used only as an excuse. I don't know that, but I 
> happen to know that setting up your own server can be great fun.)  
> Jimbo later clarified that he saw advertising as a possible last 
> resort, i.e. a much weaker interpretation of "might" and "future", 
> but then the Spanish fork had already taken place.
> 
> Really, all that is required is to "assume good faith".  When a 
> statement sounds like terrible news, perhaps there was a simple 
> mistake in translation.  It is better to ask for a clarification 
> before starting to get angry.

Assume good faith...
Okay. Let me suggest another interesting approach of the issue then...

You know we frequently receive lawyers calls or mails. Some of them 
being ... ahum, just plain "invitations to meet in a court in front of a 
judge".
The one invited is the *Foundation*. Usually not the author. Usually not 
the global community. Not you. It is the Foundation, and through the 
Foundation, it is the board.

One of the best arguments we use to defend the Foundation in court is 
"the Foundation is NOT the author. The Foundation is not governing the 
projects. The Foundation is not in charge. The Foundation does not set 
the rules and the editorial policy. The Foundation is ONLY hosting the 
projects".

Poor argument to defend ourselves if the Foundation at the same time 
publicly claims to be managing and governing the projects.

The lawyer in charge of putting our head in the mud, imho, will not 
assume good faith. Lawyers do not know bad faith and good faith. They 
know results. The lawyer will simply use the statement to show that the 
claim we make in the bylaws of simple "support"... is incorrect.

In short, public statement that we are governing and managing the 
projects, not only is incorrect in certain definitions of the words 
"managing" and "governing", but on top, it is dangerous.

I am sorry to say that. But I am serious :-(

> Hmm... there is no French interwiki link for
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Which is of course always a good reminder anyway :-)