[Foundation-l] Community Assembly

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Yes, maybe there is need for something like Chapcom for projects? 



----- Original Message ----
From: Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:38:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> As I pointed out on Wikipedia Weekly earlier this week (Ep. 49 hasn't come
>  out yet), the Board /must/ be involved in the creation of new projects (note:
>  this is new *projects*, not new *languages*). When we launch a new language,
>  it is fairly trivial to add a new subdomain, launch a new instance of
>  the software,
>  and run. However, when a new project (ie: Wikinews, Wikispecies) is launched,
>  the Board must remain involved. This is due to fiduciary
>  responsibilities (purchasing
>  of the new domain name) and brand responsibilities (new trademark to handle).
>
>  -Chad

Of course, the Board must be involved in new projects.  That doesn't
mean, though, that there' isn't room for a greater community role in
this process.

Thanks,
Pharos

>  On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >> 2008/5/13 Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com>:
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>  > The astute reader will, by now, have noticed a certain similarity
>  >>  > between these approaches. If it wasn't working the first time, simply
>  >>  > naming it "governance" won't make it work better the second time...
>  >>
>  >>  I omitted to include a conclusion here. Ooops.
>  >>
>  >>  What we need to do is to actually figure out what governing *needs*
>  >>  done - what issues aren't getting decided now that need thrashed out?
>  >>  - and then work out why it is our existing structures don't let us do
>  >>  that.
>  >>
>  >>  Simply arguing over which new theoretical structure we should install
>  >>  on top of what we already have is doomed to failure, because we're
>  >>  arguing in a vacuum...
>  >
>  > The greatest needs for governance would in my opinion would be
>  > developing policy for new languages and new projects (or, possibly,
>  > merging projects).
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  > Pharos
>  >
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l