[Foundation-l] Quo vadis, WMF?

Thu Aug 31 20:58:12 UTC 2006

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> For a long long time it has been the operative assumption that the
> Wikimedia Foundation carries the legal liability, and if things go
> really really badly wrong, the foundation would sacrifice itself, so
> the community, and the content itself could continue elsewhere.
> 
> There has however been gradual development of the foundations
> structures in two ways that seem to indicate that this operative
> assumption (not being anywhere formally enunciated, except in the
> tangible fact of working under the GFDL) may not last forever.
> 
> Firstly there is the building of increasingly robust defensive
> bulwarks against litigation and other forms that the foundation could
> be seriously harmed. This is something which is clearly an unequivocal
> good in what ever operative assumption the Foundation labors under,
> and should continue no matter what. The question on this front rather
> is, whether there exists now, or will exist in the foreseeable future,
> a sufficient level of robustness for these defenses that the need to
> keep the Foundation as expendable, discardable isn't relevant anymore
> from a standpoint of necessity?
> 
> The other facet of the question is the speed at which the organs of
> the foundation develop into integral parts of how our whole greater
> endeavour operates. Note I am not saying indispensible in the sense
> that those particular organs are locked into place (we are a long way
> from that yet), but integral in the sense that should the highly
> unlikely eventuality of having to start again occur (as the GFDL
> allows), _something_ would have fill their functions in the operation
> of the restarted endeavour.
> 
> The problem (or non-problem, as the facts may obtain) here lies on
> what philosophy do we adopt toward this earlier operative assumption
> of sacrificability?
> 
> Do we find on reflection, that we have already crossed the Rubicon,
> that although theoretically the work could be restarted elsewhere, the
> disruption would be high enough, that it is wisest to abandon all
> worry about the possibility of sacrificing the Foundation, and
> concentrate on making the Foundation functional without regard to what
> things it might lock us into, and speed up construction of legal and
> other defensive bulwarks into a kind of Fortress Wikimedia Foundation?
> 
> Or should we seriously consider examining every new thing the
> Foundation takes onto its plate, making doubly sure that it is
> something that would compromise our ability to just chuck the
> Foundation away like the tail of a lizard, and trust we will have the
> resources to grow a new tail, there being no vital organs in it.
> 
> Or can someone in one swift stroke demonstrate that all the above is
> entirely inconsequential? For me, that would be a great relief, and
> good enough.
> 

I appreciate you ask questions Cimon.
But, please, please, please, could you make your english a little bit 
more accessible for non natives ?

ant