[Foundation-l] Are we a club?

[Milos Rancic]

On 1/10/08, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Birgitte writes:
> > I find this completely
> > off-base.  WMF is *becoming* a club now.  In the past
> > it was more like a trading center.
>
> I think this criticism of my remark is fair. All analogies fail when
> you analyze them enough.  I do believe that, in some ways, the
> Wikimedia projects (and the Foundation) were like a club -- now they
> are less so.  I think it is a defensible argument that some people
> miss the club.  Nevertheless, p.rofessionalizing the infrastructure is
> an important, positive step.
> ...

I think that I understand about what Gregory and Brigitte talk. Also,
it looks to me that after Board's decision about licenses things
became much better, thanks to the community's pressure after the
decision.

Wikimedian community was a club of people involved in in the projects.
During this year it became obvious that it is not such club anymore,
which is good.

But, tendencies which are making WMF as a club of Wikimedian leaders
which are making a meta-club with other similar clubs -- didn't start
yesterday. And this is a problem.

Wikimedian community is *very* different from other free culture
communities because it is not a group of geeks who don't want to be
included in "some boring things" (like free software and open source
movements are), as well as it is not a group of professionals who are
communicating between themselves on the professional level.

Our community is much more diverse and much more like any society in
the world. Because of that, community members don't want to treat
community leaders as "good managers" or "people who made a right thing
at the right time", but as a political leaders who need to be good
managers, to do the right thing at the right time, but not only that.

I really think that comparing WM community with other free culture
communities is a wrong way of thinking. Community similar to
Wikimedian didn't happen in the history and people who are in the
position to lead it have to be very creative and extremely careful in
building its future. Consequences of doing good and bad job may be
similar (while I hope not so drastic) to the consequences of bad job
done by League of Nations.

Maybe it may look like a hyperbola, but I really feel that something
big is brewing. And it is much better to be more careful then
responsible for a disaster.