Re: [ox-en] Re: Business opportuities based on Free Software
- From: Markus <markus vodes.net>
- Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 21:59:48 +0200
On Sun, 28 May 2006 20:38:07 +0200, Christoph Reuss <crox iac-research.ch>
Of course the founder of a project has every right to treat it like his
an interesting discussion here regarding steering of to a community which
is to a large extent unstructured (compared to companies, typical
foundations and country-like structures) and where there are no clear ex
ante power alloctaions.
i agree that the founders should have special rights because of their
upfront investment of time, money and more. however, the more a project
grows and the more people are affected and put their work into it, in my
view, there is also a growing justification to come up with some kind of
governance instrument to ensure that there can be a change in leadership.
personally, i dont believe in typical elections where you get lots or
promises right before election day and once the election day is over you
get back to routine. but luckily there is the internet.
i read here that wikipedia could have made 300million accepting
googleadsense. i understand (but do not share) the view that introducing
money to such a project is not wanted. but why not just taking the money
and donating it to amnesty or greenpeace or other pro-bono institutions?
or even better give the money directly to poor people or buy food for
villages or whatever 300 million can do. who made the decision not to take
the money? personally, i find it quite irrational (im tempted to use
another word) to reject 300 million "out of principle". even worse, there
was no recourse to the people who make up wikipedia and no serious
discussion on this and it seems that this decison was made by one or only
a few people.
why not asking the community a simple yes-no question: "should there be
adsense?" together with a short list of advantages and disadvantages
(disadvantages of accepting adsense: (1) advertising on the site; (2)
problem regarding distribution/; advantages: 300 poorest cities on this
planet have enough food for x years.) if the community chooses no, so be
it (at least there is some kind of democratic legimisation). if yes, here
is a list of the 300 poorest cities on this planet. costs for
administration are 1 million. with the rest we buy food.
wikipedia is far more than jimmy wales or a few in the top position. the
fact that none of those questions comes up is imv quite irritating.
Contact: projekt oekonux.de