Thread:Project:WikiProject Extensions/Ideas/Link within Extension to allow developers to solicit donations/reply (15)

It looks like we've reasoned our way down to 2 different options:


 * 1) WMF DOES take a leadership role in MediaWiki extension development and maintenance:
 * 2) * All extensions are treated more like a public, community effort, and less like a private project.
 * 3) * Resources like time and money solicited from the stakeholders of WMF (the public) go directly to, or through, WMF.
 * 4) * Extensions receive more, or less leadership from the WMF, depending on "qualifying" factors. "Qualifying" factors could include:
 * 5) *# Popularity (whatever helps people use MediaWiki).
 * 6) *# Present or future potential public benefit.
 * 7) *# Present or future potential to be used by WMF, other educational, public-service, or research organizations, or any of their stakeholders (this leads back to popularity again).
 * 8) WMF DOES NOT take a leadership role in MediaWiki extension development and maintenance:
 * 9) * All extensions except those used by WMF are treated as individual pet projects.
 * 10) * Resources like time and money solicited from the stakeholders of WMF (the public) go directly to individuals.

I'm opposed to #2 because:


 * 1) It makes WMF a defacto free hosting provider for private interests.
 * 2) It makes WMF a defacto free advertising platform for private interests.
 * 3) It causes confusion amongst WMF stakeholders about how their contributions will be accounted for (public accounting vs. no accounting).
 * 4) It causes confusion amongst WMF stakeholders about who their contributions will be applied to benefit (public interests vs. private interests).
 * 5) It causes confusion amongst WMF stakeholders about how their contributions will be used (publicly visible projects vs. private weekend pizza party).

...and I don't think I need to bother pointing out any more worms in the can, you get the point. I see a fork in the road where either WMF takes a leadership role, or it should at most just leave things the way they are. Off the top of my head, I don't see any clear way it can support private development by mixing public resources with private resources, without also creating a lot of unanswerable questions that could lead to reevaluation of WMF's 501(c)3 status.

I don't think anyone is in favor of simply leaving things the way they are. So, I'm in favor option #1, where WMF takes a leadership role.