Hi Taku, the only thing that annoyed me was the "code in wiki" idea. Everything else is debatable. Rename - yeah, makes sense. When I suggested Wikipedia in some contexts, people were frightened by the encyclopedia-notion, which would not be appropriate for their project. (For example, the Open Source Applications Foundation decided to use the inferior TWiki software for this reason, among others.) But please, no endless name debate on wikitech. This is exactly what meta is for. One advantage of the Wikipedia name is that it might make people more willing to participate. "Oh, the Wikipedia wiki? Sure, I'd love to help with that." But I don't know how strong that argument is. I'm not opposed to a name change. Independent wiki - I don't really see the point. Meta works, we just need to define it properly (for the record, I absolutely encourage you to clean it up, and I don't think it should be used for personal essays, sorry, Anthere). Using subpages on Meta might also help for organization. If you can't convince people to clean up Meta, ask me for help ;-) That's only a valid argument if you move it really away, say, to another server. hacker.wikipedia.org would *still* be associated with Wikipedia. We probably do not want such an almost complete separation, though -- people who work on the Wikipedia software will hopefully also be encouraged to work on Wikipedia, instead of cloning it. Become a Wikipedia hacker! Free yourself from ignorance! :-) Wikipedia-like wiki specifically for open source documentation maintenance. Will probably be officially launched next week. There will also be Wikipedia-based wikis for two other projects I'm working on. Regards, Erik

Erik Moeller wrote: We should name it "Phase III, Version 1.0". Because that's what we call it anyway, Phase III. --Jimbo