[Wikipedia-l] Re: Time to set up Wikimedia ProjectCommittees

[Anthere]

Ray Saintonge a écrit:

> The points that you make are certainly very good in principle.  I may 
> question a few details, but that does not detract from the big picture. 
> To receive more comment you needed to say something more controversial. 
> The problem is that most people would agree as I do.

Ah, hummm, right. Good idea.
Okay, I'll focus on saying controversial things in the next few weeks 
then :-)
I suppose that is something I could do.

> The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the 
> by-laws.  Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would 
> empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle. 
> Unfortunately, agreement appears to be the best way to ensure that 
> nothing gets done.  The most effective dictators are the ones who do not 
> appear dictatorial.  It's been a long time since I read it, but I think 
> that Macchiavelli said something to that effect..  A parent cannot 
> forbid a child's first steps out of a fear that the child could thereby 
> hurt himself. 
> What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by 
> virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for 
> criticism.  It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even 
> be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks.  Ownership in a 
> project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods. For 
> many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of 
> ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and 
> balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find 
> alternative solutions.
> 
> In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it 
> should never emphasize that.  Rather it should emphasize a hands off 
> approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling 
> beyond that.  That commitment should also be seen as a separate 
> commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the 
> way in which they participate in plain view across the project.
> 
> The charter itself should stick to generalities and principles.  The 
> principle of openly available knowledge is good, but restricting it to 
> GFDL would not be appropriate even if previous discussions have 
> indicated that we may be stuck with it.  The NPOV principle would remain 
> as something for which we strive, without making too fine a point of 
> just what that means.  Respect for copyright would remain a principle 
> without undue emphasis on following the letter of the law in all 
> circumstances..
> 
> Ec

Shall we make a controversial charter then ?

...ou...après tout...on est chez les fous :-)