Alex T. wrote:
My suggestion is to make it as
minimal and egalitarian as possible, each wikipedia community can do
what it wants to do, if you want a lot of structure, o.k., if you
want no structure, some minimal foothold for dealing with issues. I
agree with you Brian, each project is independent but with so many
people complaining that the Board of Trustees are a bunch of shills
of Jimbo perhaps there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. This
proposal is that line.
And IMO seems to be a good line.
Could these
points be stated explicitly in the bylaws, please? I
got another impression by reading the bylaws.
Why does everything have to be stated in the bylaws, the bylaws are
just a general governing body document, they don't have anything to
do with the day to day activities of the various Wikipedia projects,
The bylaws say otherwise at the moment - they give the board of trustees
the right to interfere with the projects. And, giving you the same
answer Jimmy gave the German wikipedians: this may be fine now, but we
have to think of the situation in 20 years. Even in 20 years, it should
be guaranteed that the welsh wikipedians decide over the policies of the
welsh wikipedia, the wikibookists over wikibooks and so on.
The wikimedia foundation is for keeping the servers running, collecting
funds and defending the projects against legal threats, but not for
enforcing rules (or a however defined code of ethics) upon all projects.
greetings,
elian