On 16 August 2011 10:59, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: > That leads us to the serious dead end: We want forkability because of > our principles. We could potentially lose parts of our movement. > According to our principles, the only way to protect the movement is > to be attractive to editors more than potential forks could be. And > that's our structural problem: we are losing that battle since ~2007 > and changes which we are making are too slow and too small. > And that opens the space for even worse scenario. The last hope for > societies in such decline is to impose martial law and try to fix > things by not so pleasant methods. The only problem is that we are not > society. Nobody would be killed because of Wikimedia fall and no > economy would be destructed. More importantly, when people see harsh > methods imposed (and one of them would be forbidding [easy] > forkability), they would start to leave the project, which would just > catalyze the fall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 Precis: annoy a subcommunity sufficiently, they leave in a group. Try to stop them from leaving (as opposed to trying to attract them back), they leave faster and take others with them. This is what I mean when I say "forkability will keep us honest." - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
