Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007

[Jimmy Wales]

Not that it is up to me, nor should it be, but I intend to be a strong
personal supporter of Turin for 2008, and encourage the concept that we
should settle this fairly soon.

Gianluigi Gamba wrote:

> I congratulate with Taipei team and I'm sure they'll organize a memorable
> event.
>
> As a member of the Turin bidding team, let me voice a choral "too bad".
> We had a sort of incredible "astral conjunction" of sponsors *really eager*
> to have the Wikimania event, the enthusiasm of the whole community, the
> honeymoon with the media and the commitment of many people from national
> (and not only) institutions.
> I wonder if such combination will return in a future. I hope so.
>
> A prayer to the future jury: that's not been this year's case, but should
> geographic and linguistic criteria be essential in choosing the future
> locations, please say it in advance, before people start making contacts,
> put their faces off and spend words.
>
> Good luck Taipei, and good job.
>
> G. (aka Paginazero)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Effe iets anders]

If you mean here that we should now already pick Turin to "do"
wikimania 2008, I think that would be inappropriate. There are a lot
of other cities working on a bid right now, and it would be extremely
unfair to change the rules now and don't give others the chance to
make their bid up, which might be better, as you don't know what you
can expect. Please let's just follow the procedure as stated by the "
picking committee"  (how should I call them? ;-) ) before and let
people prepare their bid, and pick one about november, december.
If you meant otherwise, please forgive my lack of english :-)

Lodewijk

2006/9/28, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>:

> Not that it is up to me, nor should it be, but I intend to be a strong
> personal supporter of Turin for 2008, and encourage the concept that we
> should settle this fairly soon.
>
> Gianluigi Gamba wrote:
> > I congratulate with Taipei team and I'm sure they'll organize a memorable
> > event.
> >
> > As a member of the Turin bidding team, let me voice a choral "too bad".
> > We had a sort of incredible "astral conjunction" of sponsors *really eager*
> > to have the Wikimania event, the enthusiasm of the whole community, the
> > honeymoon with the media and the commitment of many people from national
> > (and not only) institutions.
> > I wonder if such combination will return in a future. I hope so.
> >
> > A prayer to the future jury: that's not been this year's case, but should
> > geographic and linguistic criteria be essential in choosing the future
> > locations, please say it in advance, before people start making contacts,
> > put their faces off and spend words.
> >
> > Good luck Taipei, and good job.
> >
> > G. (aka Paginazero)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 28/09/06, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you mean here that we should now already pick Turin to "do"
> wikimania 2008, I think that would be inappropriate. There are a lot
> of other cities working on a bid right now, and it would be extremely
> unfair to change the rules now and don't give others the chance to
> make their bid up, which might be better, as you don't know what you
> can expect. Please let's just follow the procedure as stated by the "
> picking committee"  (how should I call them? ;-) ) before and let
> people prepare their bid, and pick one about november, december.
> If you meant otherwise, please forgive my lack of english :-)


The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g.
London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.

The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort
being futile. This is damaging to the project.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Effe iets anders]

it costs a lot of time yes. That's for sure. but on the other hand you
can select the best city this way. You can not prospect how good the
other bids will be when you don't give them the chance to proof
themselves.

But you can go in between. you can do the selection on an earlier
point in the selection procedure, and make the demands smaller. Them
you can make a selection earlier in the process of preperation, and
less time will be "lost". But if you want another procedure, make one,
and don't skip the procedure and just choose one. Because next year
you will then have an even huger problem, as there will be no bidding
candidates which are somehow experienced, and you will have a lot of
cities bidding which don't have to be good.

lodewijk

2006/9/28, David Gerard <[hidden email]>:

> On 28/09/06, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If you mean here that we should now already pick Turin to "do"
> > wikimania 2008, I think that would be inappropriate. There are a lot
> > of other cities working on a bid right now, and it would be extremely
> > unfair to change the rules now and don't give others the chance to
> > make their bid up, which might be better, as you don't know what you
> > can expect. Please let's just follow the procedure as stated by the "
> > picking committee"  (how should I call them? ;-) ) before and let
> > people prepare their bid, and pick one about november, december.
> > If you meant otherwise, please forgive my lack of english :-)
>
>
> The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g.
> London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.
>
> The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort
> being futile. This is damaging to the project.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 28/09/06, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But if you want another procedure, make one,
> and don't skip the procedure and just choose one. Because next year
> you will then have an even huger problem, as there will be no bidding
> candidates which are somehow experienced, and you will have a lot of
> cities bidding which don't have to be good.


I don't have to have a replacement to be able to notice that the
current one is clearly damaging. Sending some of the Foundation's
hardest-working volunteers on a futile task is utterly demotivating.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Effe iets anders]

And forbidding someone to do work that (s)he wants to do is even more
demotivating :(

2006/9/28, David Gerard <[hidden email]>:

> On 28/09/06, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > But if you want another procedure, make one,
> > and don't skip the procedure and just choose one. Because next year
> > you will then have an even huger problem, as there will be no bidding
> > candidates which are somehow experienced, and you will have a lot of
> > cities bidding which don't have to be good.
>
>
> I don't have to have a replacement to be able to notice that the
> current one is clearly damaging. Sending some of the Foundation's
> hardest-working volunteers on a futile task is utterly demotivating.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 28/09/06, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:

> And forbidding someone to do work that (s)he wants to do is even more
> demotivating :(


That's why we're talking about it now rather than next July or September :-)


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Hsiang-Tai Chien]

Taipei, as other bidding team, also pad their volunteer time and effort on
this bid. And, we do not know if the jury will choice us or not before the
final result comes out.

We, just like all of you, are only volunteers who are willing to devote
ourselves to the WM projects and share the knowledge to benefit all human
beings.

H.T.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:07 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007

On 28/09/06, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you mean here that we should now already pick Turin to "do"
> wikimania 2008, I think that would be inappropriate. There are a lot
> of other cities working on a bid right now, and it would be extremely
> unfair to change the rules now and don't give others the chance to
> make their bid up, which might be better, as you don't know what you
> can expect. Please let's just follow the procedure as stated by the "
> picking committee"  (how should I call them? ;-) ) before and let
> people prepare their bid, and pick one about november, december.
> If you meant otherwise, please forgive my lack of english :-)


The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g.
London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.

The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort being
futile. This is damaging to the project.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




___________________________________________________
 您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！
 http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 28/09/06, Hsiang-Tai Chien <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Taipei, as other bidding team, also pad their volunteer time and effort on
> this bid. And, we do not know if the jury will choice us or not before the
> final result comes out.
> We, just like all of you, are only volunteers who are willing to devote
> ourselves to the WM projects and share the knowledge to benefit all human
> beings.


Are you saying you consider there's no problem?


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Hsiang-Tai Chien]

I'm not saying there will be no problems at all, but we will devote
ourselves to solve the issues and problems if there is any.

Thanks and best regards,
H.T.
In Taipei Wikipedian Weekly Meetup

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:54 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007

On 28/09/06, Hsiang-Tai Chien <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Taipei, as other bidding team, also pad their volunteer time and
> effort on this bid. And, we do not know if the jury will choice us or
> not before the final result comes out.
> We, just like all of you, are only volunteers who are willing to
> devote ourselves to the WM projects and share the knowledge to benefit
> all human beings.


Are you saying you consider there's no problem?


- d.



___________________________________________________
 您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！
 http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Stephen Bain]

On 9/28/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g.
> London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.
>
> The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort
> being futile. This is damaging to the project.

The problem this year was that there were so many high quality bids
which made it to final consideration, each of which had substantial
amounts of effort invested in them. In one way it's excellent that the
jury is spoiled for choice, but it's indeed a shame to "waste" that
effort. [1]

One issue is the time the process takes. At the moment the whole
process, from initial bids to selection, takes only two weeks. To have
a practical chance of success, a team really has to prepare all
aspects of their bid before the first round officially ends, so it's
not just the shortlisted bids who put in great amounts of effort.

Perhaps there could be another round of pruning between the original
acceptance of bids and the final shortlist? There were only four bids
in the shortlist this year but that number will likely rise as
chapters take hold and local communities grow.

---
[1] Many cities who don't succeed may well bid in later years, and
much of the work will carry over, but securing sponsorship, venues etc
will often be time specific.

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Birgitte_sb]

I don't see how this can be avoided, if we want the
sort of high quality bids we saw for 2007.  The only
reason people pushed so hard for such great results
was because they knew they were in competition and had
a chance of losing.  If we focus on minimizing the
amount of wasted effort then we will end up minmizing
the quality of the bids.  

I don't see any reason to scrap the system which
brought us the Turin and Tapei bids without any better
alternative.


Birgitte SB



--- David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28/09/06, effe iets anders
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > But if you want another procedure, make one,
> > and don't skip the procedure and just choose one.
> Because next year
> > you will then have an even huger problem, as there
> will be no bidding
> > candidates which are somehow experienced, and you
> will have a lot of
> > cities bidding which don't have to be good.
>
>
> I don't have to have a replacement to be able to
> notice that the
> current one is clearly damaging. Sending some of the
> Foundation's
> hardest-working volunteers on a futile task is
> utterly demotivating.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
>

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

For Turin, IMHO, could be interesting also to have a defined rule to
choose the bids.

I have followed three years of candidatures and each year different
rules.

My question is... in this choice what is the role of the
communities?

Last year the final bidders (Toronto e Boston) have been choosed
after a poll (IMHO unnecessary because the two towns are in the same
continent with a little bit difference of proposal)... and this
year?

Who has a limited knowledge of marketing knows that a poll is
important to investigate the crowd of wikipedians. It's not a must,
but it's important because the board of examiners could take a choice
with impartial data without taking in charge the weight of an
important choice.

Without a poll *seems* that the choice has been already taken
previously.

I ask for more importance of Wikipedians.

Regards

Ilario


----Messaggio originale----
Da: [hidden email]
Data: 28.09.06 10.57
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Taipei chosen to host Wikimania 2007

Not that it is up to me, nor should it be, but I intend to be a
strong
personal supporter of Turin for 2008, and encourage the concept
that we
should settle this fairly soon.

Gianluigi Gamba wrote:
> I congratulate with Taipei team and I'm sure they'll organize a
memorable
> event.
>
> As a member of the Turin bidding team, let me voice a choral "too
bad".
> We had a sort of incredible "astral conjunction" of sponsors
*really eager*
> to have the Wikimania event, the enthusiasm of the whole
community, the
> honeymoon with the media and the commitment of many people from
national
> (and not only) institutions.
> I wonder if such combination will return in a future. I hope so.
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Andrew Gray]

On 28/09/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g.
> London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.
>
> The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort
> being futile. This is damaging to the project.

The problem is that either we make a choice based on three or four
groups who've invested a lot of effort - which guarantees wasting a
fair lump of effort - or we make a choice before the detailed work has
been done, which would mean we save the legwork of the other teams
*but* we make a decision based on very little evidence. And if it then
turns out that the really really really optomistic bid for Gothab
isn't going to work once we start scaring up sponsorship etc, it's a
bit late to select an alternative...

It strikes me that any competitive bidding process, where the actual
work is devolved to a largely unknown local community, is going to
require a degree of wasted effort as all communities bidding try to
demonstrate they can achieve the required level. It's not ideal, but
neither is it simple ineptitude... it's necessary.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Brad Patrick]

We can do a better job with this procedurally, but honestly, there is
only one winner in such a situation.  It is ultimately a
winner-take-all competition.  To the extent this runs counter to the
community culture of wikilove, I don't there is an alternative.


On 9/28/06, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28/09/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g.
> > London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.
> >
> > The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort
> > being futile. This is damaging to the project.
>
> The problem is that either we make a choice based on three or four
> groups who've invested a lot of effort - which guarantees wasting a
> fair lump of effort - or we make a choice before the detailed work has
> been done, which would mean we save the legwork of the other teams
> *but* we make a decision based on very little evidence. And if it then
> turns out that the really really really optomistic bid for Gothab
> isn't going to work once we start scaring up sponsorship etc, it's a
> bit late to select an alternative...
>
> It strikes me that any competitive bidding process, where the actual
> work is devolved to a largely unknown local community, is going to
> require a degree of wasted effort as all communities bidding try to
> demonstrate they can achieve the required level. It's not ideal, but
> neither is it simple ineptitude... it's necessary.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
[hidden email]
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Erik Moeller-4]

On 9/29/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We can do a better job with this procedurally, but honestly, there is
> only one winner in such a situation.  It is ultimately a
> winner-take-all competition.  To the extent this runs counter to the
> community culture of wikilove, I don't there is an alternative.

I don't think it runs counter to wikilove, but perhaps we need to make
it clearer to people that, yes, they may spend weeks on preparing a
bid that will not be accepted. And as has been pointed out time and
again, Wikimania cannot, should not and will not be the only Wikimedia
event happening in a single year.

Organizing events is very much within the domain of chapters, and we
have a UK chapter. Is there a reason some of the lessons from
preparing the bid could not be used to prepare a more focused wiki
event in the UK? (*draws wiki youth camp idea  from hat*)
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[James Hare]

Yes... we have small local meetups, and the international conference.
Something in between would be good.

On 9/28/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 9/29/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > We can do a better job with this procedurally, but honestly, there is
> > only one winner in such a situation.  It is ultimately a
> > winner-take-all competition.  To the extent this runs counter to the
> > community culture of wikilove, I don't there is an alternative.
>
> I don't think it runs counter to wikilove, but perhaps we need to make
> it clearer to people that, yes, they may spend weeks on preparing a
> bid that will not be accepted. And as has been pointed out time and
> again, Wikimania cannot, should not and will not be the only Wikimedia
> event happening in a single year.
>
> Organizing events is very much within the domain of chapters, and we
> have a UK chapter. Is there a reason some of the lessons from
> preparing the bid could not be used to prepare a more focused wiki
> event in the UK? (*draws wiki youth camp idea  from hat*)
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

James Hare wrote:
[fixed top posting]

> On 9/28/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 9/29/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> We can do a better job with this procedurally, but honestly, there is
>>> only one winner in such a situation.  It is ultimately a
>>> winner-take-all competition.  To the extent this runs counter to the
>>> community culture of wikilove, I don't there is an alternative.
>> I don't think it runs counter to wikilove, but perhaps we need to make
>> it clearer to people that, yes, they may spend weeks on preparing a
>> bid that will not be accepted. And as has been pointed out time and
>> again, Wikimania cannot, should not and will not be the only Wikimedia
>> event happening in a single year.
>>
>> Organizing events is very much within the domain of chapters, and we
>> have a UK chapter. Is there a reason some of the lessons from
>> preparing the bid could not be used to prepare a more focused wiki
>> event in the UK? (*draws wiki youth camp idea  from hat*)
>>
>
> Yes... we have small local meetups, and the international conference.
> Something in between would be good.
>

Wikimania Europe, Asia, America perhaps?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 29/09/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>   Wikimania cannot, should not and will not be the only Wikimedia
> event happening in a single year.
> Organizing events is very much within the domain of chapters, and we
> have a UK chapter. Is there a reason some of the lessons from
> preparing the bid could not be used to prepare a more focused wiki
> event in the UK? (*draws wiki youth camp idea  from hat*)


Yes, seeing what can be done to produce a local event would actually
be a really good use of the energy.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Andrew Gray wrote:

>On 28/09/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>The procedure as it is evidently needs work, since other bidders (e.g.
>>London) are disappointed at their hard work being pretty much wasted.
>>
>>The current system seems to ensure a lot of volunteer time and effort
>>being futile. This is damaging to the project.
>>    
>>
>The problem is that either we make a choice based on three or four
>groups who've invested a lot of effort - which guarantees wasting a
>fair lump of effort - or we make a choice before the detailed work has
>been done, which would mean we save the legwork of the other teams
>*but* we make a decision based on very little evidence. And if it then
>turns out that the really really really optomistic bid for Gothab
>isn't going to work once we start scaring up sponsorship etc, it's a
>bit late to select an alternative...
>
>It strikes me that any competitive bidding process, where the actual
>work is devolved to a largely unknown local community, is going to
>require a degree of wasted effort as all communities bidding try to
>demonstrate they can achieve the required level. It's not ideal, but
>neither is it simple ineptitude... it's necessary.
>

I don't have any problem with the bidding process either.  In business
when a construction project is up for bids, anyone who wants to have a
reasonable chance of winning will have to show that he can do his
homework.  Bidders for the Olympics put a tremendous amount of money and
energy into preparing their bids without any guarantee of return.  If
they suggested to their potential sponsors that winniing the bid was a
sure thing that would be deceptive.

The shortlisted bids seemed to have been very strong, and three of them
had to lose.

I don't think that it helps the transparency of the process when someone
like Jimbo begins by supporting a bid before the bidding has seriously
started.  It's the kind of prejudicial comment that tells everyone else
to give up before they even try.  It casts doubt on whether he believes
that the community has enough maturity to make good choices.

An effective self-governing community requires a high level of trust,
especially when it errs in its decisions.  As time goes on the Gods need
to remember that there are more and more people with a long term
investment of time and commitment, and that extended commitment is not
consistent with acting stupidly.  Intervention from on high should be
limited to situations where the community has gone seriously off track
from its fundamental principles.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l