On 10/24/2010 4:30 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Michael Snow<wikipe...@frontier.com> wrote: >> On 10/24/2010 4:12 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Pharos<pharosofalexand...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Perhaps an alternative strategy could be to hold a grand round-robin >>>> vote to launch one new project per year, at least in beta phase. >>>> >>>> This might ensure that the very best ideas get through and are >>>> actualized, without quite opening the floodgates. >>> I like the idea of one 'beta' per year. >>> >>> Before starting these betas, we should have a rough process for how we >>> decide when to kill an unsuccessful beta. An RFC on meta? >> Should the parallel processes require comparable levels of agreement for >> starting or shutting down a project? That would seem fair. > I'm not following you. > > Are you referring to existing processes for starting/killing > projects/subdomains? > > Could you expand/rephrase? A mixture, I guess. The idea of a regularly scheduled process to launch new projects seems reasonable, and an annual cycle sounds good to me. A firm commitment to launch one (and only one) beta project per year does not. If there are multiple great concepts, or none, I don't want us to be bound to a quota. But if there's a basic altitude for achieving launch, presumably losing too much altitude after launch would justify shutting down before there's a crash.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
