On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Landscheidt wrote: > > Given the fact that no candidate for the board seems to have > > campaigned prominently for this issue in this year's elec- > > tion and it does not even seem to have been mentioned in the > > two before, I do not see why the board should have decided > > otherwise. > > > > As the re-prioritization seems to have primarily been > > triggered by River's rant to this very list, do you find his > > behaviour or the subsequent board decision disrepectful of > > the community? > > > > > This is not actually that large a surprise as it seems. > > A candidate choosing dumps as his main plank of > attack in running for the board would most likely > be perceived as somebody working as a Trojan > Horse for a serious attempt to fork. > > The one thing good dumps preserve is the possibility > of rejuvenating our projects should WMF ever fail - > heaven forfend! But they also not-inconsequently are > vital to an attempt at forking, even while the WMF > were alive and well. > > So as a former candidate, let me just state that for > the best of reasons - sustainability - dumps are > indeed a priority for all that take sustainability > seriously. This is not a matter of opinion, but just > a bald fact. > > > Yours, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen The dumps are not needed for a fork. Sure, the dumps would be convenient to someone who wanted to fork, but that's a long shot once per decade serious discussion and the fork could be achieved without the dump. Dumps are primarily useful to researchers, to mirrors, to people interested in archiving a copy of all knowledge on their computer, and only as an ancillary affordance should they be thought of as being there for forkers. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
