2011/8/15 David Richfield <davidrichfi...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Tim Starling <tstarl...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> On 12/08/11 20:55, David Gerard wrote:
>>> THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to >>> fork the projects, so as to preserve them. >> I must have missed the place where you actually made this case. I >> tried reading your blog posts but I didn't see it there. >> In 2005 you said that the point is to insure the data against the >> financial collapse of the Foundation. > It's not just financial collapse. When Sun was acquired by Oracle and > they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork > the project - take the codebase and run with it. It's not that easy > for Wikipedia, and we want to make sure that it remains doable, or > else the Foundation has too much power over the content community. > Let me make it clear that I currently am happy with the Foundation, > and don't see a fork as necessary. If the community has a problem > with the board at any point, we can elect a new one. If things > change, however, and it becomes clear that the project is being > jeopardised by the management, we need a plan C. Pretty much. It's not urgent - I do understand we're chronically underresourced - but I think it's fairly obvious it's a Right Thing, and at the very least something to keep in the back of one's mind. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l