Hoi,
We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is only one
way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that part
of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational
> institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the
> road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an absurdity.
> The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the builders
> of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
>
> Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
> membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims
> of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
> membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
>
> 1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap to
> new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being
> provided by the WMF.
>
> 2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
> Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech
> contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most
> of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully we
> could publicly shame them into handing it over.
>
> George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as I
> can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
> view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual editor.
> When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
> just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon valley
> entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should be
> the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care. But
> this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role
> completely
> > separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become
> > dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just
> sack
> > them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure
> > contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people who
> > actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the
> course
> > for its development.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
> >> functional representative body that had the community's trust and
> respect,
> >> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and
> >> the WMF.
> >>
> >> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
> >> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
> >> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But
> without
> >> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
> >> from the WMF - good and bad.
> >>
> >> Anthony Cole
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
> >>> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
> >>> will
> >>> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
> >>> >
> >>> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation
> >>> - not
> >>> > to the movement.
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi Denny,
> >>>
> >>> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different
> view.
> >>> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit
> >>> directors
> >>> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "...
> >>> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the
> >>> organization,
> >>> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the
> organization
> >>> accountable.
> >>> " [1]
> >>>
> >>> Sarah
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
