[Wikipedia-l] Re: The Board -> Mav's disgust

Anthere anthere9 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 15 13:35:42 UTC 2004

Andrew Lih a écrit:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:57:20 +0200, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>The sentiment is dittoed here. I don't have a clue what all this
>>>hoo-ha is about, but that fact alone seems to suggest that something
>>>clandestine occurred. From what I understand, this is something that,
>>>if worked out correctly, *could* be beneficial to all the Wikipedias.
>>>So why haven't I heard anything about this on en.wikipedia.org? It's
>>>not even on the Community Portal. And the fact that someone as
>>>even-headed as mav is even thinking about quitting makes me wonder
>>>just what's going on.
> I've no reason to doubt the good intentions of the board. However, the
> place where it should have been announced or discussed before a vote
> (m:Goings-on) didn't have it, nor was there a any significant call on
> EN.

Point 8 :
I think the intention of the founders of this project is not that it 
stays english entirely. Obviously, it should be a multilingual database.
Consequently, I see not why there should be a significant call on en and 
not on other projects.
Again, we have grown too big to spend our time to go to each of the 50 
projects in turn to ask people their opinion. This is just impossible.
Some time ago, I suggested that we have a system to publish an message 
on all wikipedia at the same time, precisely for these types of general 
message; it basically met no answer but one.
How do you suggest that we warn each project in turn ?
What is the reason of being of this list if not precisely to be a place 
where all those interested by meta issues to gather ?
What should we be doing differently to warn perhaps 10 000 people at the 
same time ?

So there has been a breakdown somewhere along the line in terms of
> due process, and it does seem a dark cloud hangs over the new project.
> One of the benefits of wikis, and why we love them so, is exactly the
> elimination of process. Clay Shirky talks about this specifically
> (http://www.corante.com/many/20030801.shtml)
> However, when it comes to major extra-wiki decisions, such as creation
> of new projects, or board level decisions, process should be defined
> and followed. We're all breaking new ground here with the board and
> its role, so let's learn from this and "reboot" in an appropriate
> manner, even if it means suspending Wikispecies and going back to
> obtain some kind of quorum (if not consensus).

Point 9 : I do not wish to contradict any of what you say here, but 
wishes to add a thought.
Mav indicated that in deciding whether to start the project or not, the 
board has overstepped its mandate. I really think the 3 of us thought 
that there was consensus enough to make that possible.
Ultimately, when a new project is created, there are a couple of legal 
issues behind. Such as expansion of the Foundation role (in adding a new 
project), expansion of costs (more bandwidth and storing place on 
servers) or new domain names to purchase and manage. It seems to me that 
in spite what is said, declaring the starting of a new project is 
totally within the bounds of the board, because this is a LEGAL creation.

As for the rest of your comment, I recognise its validity and wiseness.

More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list