Eclecticology wrote:
Alex R. wrote:
>Besides the valid point that the public should have
a say in the
>logo outcome it is not unreasonable to require some kind of
>registration before voting. That is done in practically all
>democracies including member and shareholder corporations.
I didn't know we had become a democracy. I've
seen no evidence that
Wikimedia is anything but a proprietary organization.
Well, it is now (or will be soon, I forget where we are technically
in the legal process of changing things over) a nonprofit organisation;
eventually it will have members and be a "corporation" in a generic sense.
IMO, the logo decision is the sort of very special, once-only decision
that needs to be made at the organisational level according to bylaws
written by the Wikimedia Board (which does not yet exist I believe).
The voting process that we're going through now is rather farcical;
but the real lesson to draw is not (IMO) that voting is good or bad,
but that we should avoid making special, once-only decisions of this sort.
It's OK for the logo, but most decisions should be kept small and local,
chosen by consensus among the involved parties without wide-ranging effects.
Like how we let anybody come in and edit a specific article just like that!
-- Toby