[Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions

[Andre Engels]

2007/4/25, Peter van Londen <londenp at gmail.com>:
> I don't see the relevance of your answer.
> What does that have to do with the fact that this policy is unnecessary for
> many projects, where the Foundation still has some authority left and these
> problems do not occur?

So your idea is to have the policy that when a project accepts
foundation decisions, it does not need to, but when it doesn't it is
forced to? If on those projects the foundation has sufficient
authority left, what is lost by having a policy that states that it
has?

> It is just a matter of opinion: if it is not broken: don't try to fix it.

But if you fix it anyway, why not fix it good? Better to repair it
once and have it right than to have to repair every separate piece
when it breaks.

> Apparently in this example you mention: it is broken, the Foundation lost
> its authority (so clearly that not even Office works), so fix it there.
> There is no need to fix it project-wide (certainly when most office workers
> will have knowledge of a few languages like every normal person). This
> problem seems to be very limited compared to the total projects the
> Foundation has. Simply asking a steward or representative from that certain
> community will do in most cases and will be better accepted by the smaller
> communities, than someone they don't know removes a part of their content.

If that does work, then that's the way to go, sure. But what if it
doesn't on a certain occasion? Say to the project "You won't listen,
so you're under the policy now"? That is really no different from
having it under the policy in the first place. Or are we going to
solve each such occasion separately, so that in a few years time
before doing an office action on zh:wiktionary the foundation first
has to check how things work there?

Let's just have a policy that states that these actions can be done,
and then, when it is needed, they can be done. As long as there are
other ways that work better, yes, let's use them by all means, but
there's no reason to close the door on a specific route.

> In some issues it is better to have it fixed at the top. In this case not: I
> would use the network of stewards and other people in stead of forcing it
> upon the project instead.

If the Foundation has legal reason to remove something, then it must
be able to force it on the project. Whether through the network or by
other means. This should be no "would you please". How it is done can
be debated, not whether it should be possible.

-- 
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels