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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l