2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness <[email protected]>: > David Gerard wrote: >> 2009/8/13 Surreptitiousness <[email protected]>:
>>> got? David brought up the idea of forking again, and maybe that's what >>> we need to explore once again, maybe we do need to investigate a fork of >>> the project. Tying this into the Guardian article, maybe a fork would >>> protect us somewhat from the fears it provokes. >> Yes. Paradoxically, forkability can protect from actual forking. > God forbid I was actually raising it as a "put up or shut up". *cough* I didn't mean it as that at all. I'm speaking from open source project examples, and content/code forks such as LiveJournal - where incompetent forks (GreatestJournal, InsaneJournal) didn't take the pressure off LJ, but a competent fork, DreamWidth, seems to have made life much better for all concerned, and code is being shared and so forth and relations are good. Forkability is IMO a drastically important thing to preserving all our work here. My blog post from two years ago on the subject (update numbers per Moore's Law): http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/ - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
