> On 15/08/11 16:30, David Gerard wrote: >> 2011/8/15 David Richfield <davidrichfi...@gmail.com>: >>> It's not just financial collapse. When Sun was acquired by Oracle and >>> they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork >>> the project - take the codebase and run with it. It's not that easy >>> for Wikipedia, and we want to make sure that it remains doable, or >>> else the Foundation has too much power over the content community. >>> Let me make it clear that I currently am happy with the Foundation, >>> and don't see a fork as necessary. If the community has a problem >>> with the board at any point, we can elect a new one. If things >>> change, however, and it becomes clear that the project is being >>> jeopardised by the management, we need a plan C. >> >> >> Pretty much. It's not urgent - I do understand we're chronically >> underresourced - but I think it's fairly obvious it's a Right Thing, >> and at the very least something to keep in the back of one's mind. > > So you're worried about a policy change? What sort of policy change > specifically would necessitate forking the project? Is there any such > policy change which could plausibly be implemented by the Foundation > while it remains a charity? > > I'm just trying to evaluate the scale of the risk here. The amount of > resources that we need to spend on this should be proportional to the > risk. > > -- Tim Starling
That technical staff have effective power to decide whether a fork is justified is reason enough. Fred Bauder _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
