The comments I get on my blog are among the best sources of thought I had in a lifetime. This morning, in particular, I woke up to read a very short comment that really hits the point. At first I thought to write a quick answer, then I realized that the basic misunderstanding in what I wrote originated exactly from the fact that I had been too quick. So I'll better put it here, to make sure this time I can express exactly what I mean.

pfctdayelise wrote on 2007-06-28 10:25:43 +0200

---------------------------------------------

Did you notice that River wanted to cut all the projects except for Wikipedia? That doesn't worry you, but a vague statement from a Polish candidate does? :)
---------------------------------------------

I did notice she has a major focus on the pedias. Whether I like other projects or not, this stance reflects what the public says everyday. While we all cast a vote by putting a cross on a symbol, users vote everyday with their mouses, and their vote is quite clear. All languages have the most of their traffic on their pedias, and we are supposed to work for the people first.

Otherwise we risk a high degree of self-referentiality, which is not going to do us any good. We can work to direct people's will by marketing, but if we go totally against what the people want our campaign is going to end with a defeat, no matter how good our intentions can be.
IMHO, the one convincing bit in River's statement was a simple implied question that sounds Can we afford it?

I never hear such a question in WMF. It's nice to have an optimistic state of mind, yet an endless lot of American families found out that an overdose of optimism can get you bankrupt. Or (which is even worse) it can make of you such a money addict that you end up in being totally dependant on what your financial sources want/need. Just take a look at what happens with political campaigns in all major countries.

Presidents and Prime Ministers are mostly hostages of those who finance their campaigns. What happens if the WMF gets in such a financial trouble that it simply cannot afford saying No anymore? I think this is a major issue, and it's not the kind of issue we can solve by simply stating that we need yet another major fund-raiser. For all projects/families/companies/parties there is a financial borderline, beyond which you simply loose your independence.

We can either find our independence limit the hard way (by loosing it) or we can start to think about defending it at root level.
Then again, maybe I'm simply too full of fatherly hormones... Maybe the fact that I'm going to be a father for the first time next February makes me worry about the future more than I usually would. It's a possibility that I cannot exclude in principle, so keep it in mind when evaluating my words. Maybe I'm simply getting old, after all. :)

As per projects, I would be extremely sad if I lost wikinews. I rate it the one most promising project we have. IMHO this is the NEXT BIG THING, it just needs to grow up to explosion level. I'm sure commons (as soon as it's given a better ''multilingual'' catalogation structure) can destroy any competitor as a source for copy-free material.

There also are projects I like less, to name one I consider wiktionaries as a waste of time, since the Omegawiki project has much a wider scope in the very same field. I'm doubtful about wikibooks, while I do believe that Wikisource is a great idea (and it would be much better if it was ONE wikisource in all, in commons style, but then again we need a good catalogue structure).

Yet, this is about liking or not liking projects at my own INDIVIDUAL level. I'm but one vote, and no one should rely on my personal likings to make planet-wide decisions, because my personal will cannot change the planet alone. We all will check a box very soon, yet millions of people vote everyday by clicking our links and hosting companies vote by sending us invoices.

Many other sources of expenditure are there, for sure. So when someone raises a red flag and says watch our shared wallet! I believe she's right, it's time we all think about it. THAT is the part of River's statement I like.
Yet, as I'm sure you noticed, she came only at the 4th position in my choice. Apart from sharing part of your doubts on closing projects I think she should be more precise in stating her plans: I mean, cutting is nice, but how much exactly do we save by closing what?

I gather River is not crazy, so this should be her major criterion in order to make choices, along with protecting what the end users give their preference to. Yet my own esteem did not become an endorsement (check the endorsement page), exactly because having a grand idea is only half of the job, and sometimes even less. I think she needs to make clear proposals and show the community how exactly she plans to move.

Otherwise speaking about undefined cuts can only have an alarming effect, as it happens with the polish candidate.
People who have the right to vote are those who worked for it. When you cut projects you cut the source of the right to vote in WMF, i.e. the individual rights of people who invested a lot of their lives in those projects. While I'm 100% positive that we must learn to watch our wallet I don't think River will be elected, because in her statement she failed to offer something in exchange for the rights that can be deleted by such cuts. This is a major mistake in any campaign. I hope this clarifies my position.