On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke > <dirkingofra...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think >> and say it loud. > > Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are > seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be > done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered > unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia > projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one > which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved > and protected nonetheless. > > With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has > explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution > would be done in partnership with the community, including people > who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. > [1]
I am sorry but this is purest echo chamber talk, you are dealing out. You hear what you are saying, but you don't hear a thing anyone else is saying, There has always been a consensus that what you are proposing is evil and against what we as a non-profit free content site stand for. There has never been the slightest consensus we should take one step on the road you want us to embark on. Period, > > The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date, > have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as > part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and > mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for > different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring > all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system). > > Some of these ideas are explored here: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potential_models_for_hiding_images > > Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would > you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether > there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki > community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is > that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether? The resolution was always against long held perennial proposal opposition. It never was going to fly. Walk away from the dead horse. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
