Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2009/12/20 Laura Hale <[email protected]>: >> This was posted to the Strategy wiki but I don't think I ever mentioned it >> on list. The case study itself can be found at >> http://www.fanhistory.com/FHproposal.pdf . The blog entry about the case >> study can be found at http://blog.fanhistory.com/?p=1103 . >> > > I think the study shows the old problems, which mainly comes from > Wikimedia/Wikipedia history. > > Meta wiki was first created as a place for meta-cross-project > discussions including strategy planning as well. Then there was an > assumption (IMHO false) that there is some sort of > meta-cross-language-cross-projects-community which is allowed to make > vital decisions by the system of consensus process mixed with voting > system.It was soon found silly and many decisions were moved to > Wikimedia committees that theoretically were created just as > "advisory bodies" for Wikimedia Board of Trustees, but in fact the > advice given by the committees was usually accepted by the Board.
Note that Meta was founded in 2001, so it significantly predates the Foundation and the non-Wikipedia projects. So the idea that decision-making there was "soon found silly" is a bit of an exaggeration. It predates the namespace feature in MediaWiki; it originally had a role similar to the Help and Wikipedia namespaces on the English Wikipedia today. -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
