Behavior on many projects IS outrageous; when someone complains the response is almost universally that the foundation doesn't get involved in local project business.
Mark skype: node.ue On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ray Saintonge<sainto...@telus.net> wrote: > Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: >> Marc, you comment is not very optimistic, but it was a great >> incentive to do what I announced above. Hopefully others will be more >> encouraged to voice their ideas about other matters, knowing they'll >> find a friendly hear and some useful and very welcome feedback. >> > > Marc and I just happen to come from a generation of grumpy old men who > have never had enough good sense to abandon our principles. If you do > that long enough the optimism can suffer until you can pull yourself off > the carpet and try again. >> I'm glad to find Nathan in a better mood this time :-). Of course >> language is a problem. This is indeed a very interesting problem that >> I hope has a solution in the international wikipedian community. That >> is also an obstacle to getting on greater detail in this list since >> most of its members would not be able to verify and cross check that >> information. >> >> The Foundation can't afford to let a Wikipedia on some obscure >> language (that is not the case of Portuguese) to run wild and be run >> by some mob. At some time a flag will go up. What then? I could offer >> some suggestions, but I was hoping that you all would come up with >> some useful and tested procedures. >> > > It's unrealistic to expect those who do not speak your language to solve > the problems. Just because the anglophones happen to be hanging from > the top of the Tower of Babel does not imply that they have any greater > expertise. I am willing to concede that the behaviour on some obscure > language projects is nothing short of outrageous. How do you determine > what the Foundation can or can't afford? Being able to deal with the > problems requires for the community to have a critical membership mass. > The Foundation can't demand other solutions without compromising NPOV > and individual responsibility. If there are specific problems in a > project, and nobody knows about them, nothing can be done. >> I'm afraid to have to admit that the lack of interest and advice that >> I got, so far, covers both list and off-list. I wish that would >> change, again not only for the present case, but what kind of message >> is this sending to others? How sure can we all be that there aren't >> or there would not be other cases in the future? >> > > The lack of interest is no surprise. Why would anyone with an already > full plate of problems want to take on a new one? You can never be sure > that there will be no other cases in the future. >> Quite frankly, I would rather be wrong (not a very palatable >> prospect) but give others the assurance that their voices will be >> heard, than letting them remember the story of this guy from >> "somewhere" who blew the whistle and nobody cared. > Preferring to be wrong is very altruistic in an environment where most > are desperate to be right, and to win. You don't have to worry about > them remembering that nobody cared when they never acknowledge that > someone was blowing the whistle in the first place. > > Ec > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
