[Wikipedia-l] Re: Time to set up Wikimedia ProjectCommittees
Anthere
anthere8 at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 28 22:14:24 UTC 2004
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
> The points that you make are certainly very good in principle. I may
> question a few details, but that does not detract from the big picture.
> To receive more comment you needed to say something more controversial.
> The problem is that most people would agree as I do.
Ah, hummm, right. Good idea.
Okay, I'll focus on saying controversial things in the next few weeks
then :-)
I suppose that is something I could do.
> The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the
> by-laws. Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would
> empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle.
> Unfortunately, agreement appears to be the best way to ensure that
> nothing gets done. The most effective dictators are the ones who do not
> appear dictatorial. It's been a long time since I read it, but I think
> that Macchiavelli said something to that effect.. A parent cannot
> forbid a child's first steps out of a fear that the child could thereby
> hurt himself.
> What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by
> virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for
> criticism. It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even
> be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks. Ownership in a
> project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods. For
> many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of
> ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and
> balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find
> alternative solutions.
>
> In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it
> should never emphasize that. Rather it should emphasize a hands off
> approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling
> beyond that. That commitment should also be seen as a separate
> commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the
> way in which they participate in plain view across the project.
>
> The charter itself should stick to generalities and principles. The
> principle of openly available knowledge is good, but restricting it to
> GFDL would not be appropriate even if previous discussions have
> indicated that we may be stuck with it. The NPOV principle would remain
> as something for which we strive, without making too fine a point of
> just what that means. Respect for copyright would remain a principle
> without undue emphasis on following the letter of the law in all
> circumstances..
>
> Ec
Shall we make a controversial charter then ?
...ou...après tout...on est chez les fous :-)
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list