On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:40:25 +0200, Anthere
<anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I do not think it is a legal requirement that
board meetings are help
publicly. And I do not think it would be a good idea that we are
required to discuss publicly only. As for the meeting in question, I for
one, did not keep a copy of the log, and if some one did, I request to
review it before it is possibly made public.
I was under the impression the board would be responsible for macro
issues that were incapable of being done by the "community", such as
the legal, monetary and logistical needs of the Foundation. And that
anything that could still be initiated and decided on by the community
would be done in wiki space by Wikipedians. If this is an incorrect
interpretation, then an explanation would be appreciated.
So my response to your point would be either:
1) The decision should not be done by the board, but by Wikipedians
with the usual due process of proposal, discussion, yet more
discussion, too much discussion, then voting.
or
2) The decision be made by the board but be open and solicit opinions
from the community, with the proceedings made public.
Clearly, the way you suggest (by the board, but closed) is very much
against the open spirit the Wikipedia community is used to. To be
clear, I'm largely in favor of the Wikispecies proposal, and don't
think the board acted in bad faith. But we should also take this
opportunity to make sure that we set the right precedent for future
decisions.
If there is one thing I really hate is talking, endless, fruitless
talking. At some stage a decision is to be made. On en:wiktionary a
decision was made with a slim majority carried by some IP numbers that
voted. The consequence of this is that an important feature requested by
the de: and nl: wiktionary cannot be given because of this en:majority.
The result is that the nl:wiktionary that is currently at 4060 articles,
will be increasingly hard to fix. What can I do? Rail against these
stupid people that are in the way, continue harping the same old tune ?
What would it achieve ?
This is the status quo and I will have to live with it for now.
I would really hate it when there is not a final arbiter who decides one
way or the other and can go against what a vocal group *demands*.
Another thing, we are not only wikiPedians, see your self as a
wikiMedian then you may have the right attitued to contribute to the
organisation of this organisation. Being a wikiMedian means that you
follow things on Meta and contribute THERE to the discussion. It means
that you inform in your project about goings on. I for one have posted
on nl:wikipedia about the existence of Commons and Wikispecies, I
informed about the latest releases of the mediawiki software. The cool
thing is, so can you.
Isn't it funny that the people who DO something get all the flack ??
Dutch proverb: "The best boatswains are ashore" !!
Thanks,
GerardM