[Foundation-l] Projects without >FDL1.2 migration clause

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>  > If anyone's conclusion is that my information is wrong, it may
>  > be said so (something like "I checked it with <some better
>  > introduced person in fr.wp> and there it is not relevant issue
>  > anymore.").
>
>  Not that it's wrong, but that it's too vague and unspecified.
>  The burden must be on you to prove that there is a real problem at
>  hand.  Or else, any whisper or rumour would force the board to
>  spend significant time on investigations, that most often would
>  turn out to be pointless.

Come on, I am not talking about something which is hard to find. It is
not about XY project, it is about French projects. As my information
is laying on information of another (much better introduced in fr.wp)
Wikimedian, the same path may be passed to make an opposite
conclusion.

And, to repeat again: I am not "the opposite side" which should prove
something. I raised this as a possible problem. If no one is willing
to address it, I am fine with it. (BTW, see Mike's two responses in
one email of some other tread: ~ "we are aware about this, if you want
more informations contact that person"; ~ "I don't think that that it
is a problem". The first one is really good. About the second I may
elaborate. However, in both cases I've got very clear answers to my
questions.)

>  Somehow this relates to your earlier posting where you detailed
>  some actual problems where the board had failed and a council
>  would be needed.  I liked that posting a lot, because it suddenly
>  brought the discussion of a council from the abstract and fuzzy to
>  the clear and concrete.  But that also made your ideas vulnerable
>  to scrutiny.  For example, you mentioned that the board had been
>  too slow in closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia.  Well, perhaps
>  there was (is) no real problem in delaying?  Some matters are
>  urgent, others are not.  Somebody at the top must do the
>  prioritizations, and somebody at the bottom will inevitably
>  disagree and be unhappy.  You are apparently unhappy with the
>  board and ultimately with Anthere.  But is a council really a
>  solution?  What if you, instead, was the chair of WMF?  That would
>  mean you could prioritize those issues that are really important
>  (according to you).  But what if other volunteers were constantly
>  bothering you with irrelevant and unsubstantiated requests?

The fact is that Moldovan Wikipedia problem is not solved; as well as
the fact is that from time to time we had a lot of discussions about
it.

Actually, Florence is my favorite Board member. I am really confused
about your conclusion. (But, thanks for noticing that, I will think
about it.)

>  Now suppose the board continues as today, and the council is
>  added, with you a member of the council.  Some decisions are taken
>  by the board, others by the council.  Requests are acted upon in a
>  timely manner.  But will everybody at the bottom be happy now?
>  In order to get things done, the council needs to take action
>  after a majority vote, which leaves a minority unhappy.  Even if
>  the members of the council reach consensus and they are properly
>  elected by and do represent their communities, will everybdoy in
>  the community actually agree with their actions?  I think not.

If it matters, I don't see myself as a representative, but as a person
who is willing to help. Actually, I am a very bad representative and
all communities where I may be elected know that. (I am good in some
other things, but not in representation of something which I don't
think.)

>  There are a lot of legal and organizational technicalities in
>  setting up a council, such as how do you determine who is included
>  in "the volunteer community" and how do you properly "represent"
>  them.  But what is the benefit?  Even if you succeed in setting up
>  the council, lots of individual volunteers will be unhappy with
>  every single action that this council takes.  The only people who
>  get happier are those who are elected to this council.  Is *that*
>  the problem you are trying to solve?

Nobody is saying that VC should constantly make some decisions.
Addressing the most of the problems is something which should be done
by the process of communication between the communities and interested
persons and VC should help that process.

Of course, there are more things to say about it, but I don't think
that this is the right thread.