-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Could someone let me know why we need a bureaucratic process (I mean "bureaucratic" without the connotative value) to approve new projects when there has been exactly zero proposals since 2006 that actually needed to be approved? (And in fact, there is serious discussion about whether our current projects make sense, a fact which is too easily overlooked)
I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*? I'd be far more interested in discussing ways we can critically evaluate which of our current projects should remain in the Wikimedia movement, and which should be asked to move outside that movement to continue their development. - -Mike -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksUJhMACgkQst0AR/DaKHs/tgCgiX8VVLWSmBq+TyGN5ZIpfqSc XYIAn3etuRSG2Q87KoueqLpgAMb38cQJ =YYTH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
