[Foundation-l] Wikimedia brand survey open
saintonge at telus.net
Sat Jun 2 18:00:46 UTC 2007
>On 6/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>>To give an example, I would suggest that Wikipedians (who aren't involved in
>>>Wikinews) shouldn't be involved in a discussion as to whether or not to
>>>change the name of Wikinews, because they are not at all part of the core
>>>group of the Wikinews project.
>>That sounds like an effective divide and conquer strategy. A person who
>>is determined to effect these changes would likely have an easier time
>>doing it that way than by trying to develop a consensus across all the
>>projects at once.
>I was thinking it'd be just the opposite. If you have a consensus across
>each project individually, then you automatically have a consensus across
>all projects as a whole. The reverse, however, is not true.
Sure, but tactically it is more effective to work on one project at a
time. Get the low hanging fruit first, and use that as a foundation for
going after the more resistant ones. When only 5% or 10% of the
projects have not changed pressuring them could bring the results that
>I very much support the operational autonomy of projects, but this is
>>not an operational matter; it's a question of identity.
>Well, I certainly think a project's members should have a say in their
>identity. Not that they should be the sole determiner of that, mind you,
>but a change from above which doesn't have the support of the project's core
>members is bound to fail anyway.
Yes, and that's why one examines the situation from a tactical
perspective. I would advise against being complacent about changes from
>To draw a
>>parallel with the United States, would it be acceptable if State X
>>insisted on calling itself the "Confederate State of X"? Even an
>>overwhelming popular vote in the state for that would not find
>>acceptance in a wider community.
>No, it wouldn't be acceptable. IMO change should only come with the consent
>of *both* the core members of the project *and* the core members of the
>foundation as a whole.
Yes, I agree that there should agreement at both levels. We then have
to agree on what we mean by "core". How much room is there in the core
for people who ask tough questions? ;-)
More information about the foundation-l