The Kaltura brouhaha

It all began (publicly) with a press release, mid-January. No, wait. The average Wikimedian would first have had the opportunity to hear of it via a Wikinews ‘leak’. That was about a week beforehand. A few days after the press release, Jay Walsh had what must have been a baptism of fire in making the announcement to the community.

So, mailing list firebomb. The main points of contention were

In the future I hope the Foundation will first seek community input on technology partnerships: A flash slideshow editor isn’t anything anyone here has been asking for, as far as I can tell… But we have thousands of other widely desired features, many of which could have substantial external components ripe for partnership.

In the end these concerns were all more or less assuaged by, of all people, the developers. The replies went something like

In another post Greg commented, I’m unhappy that despite prior discussions, staff is acting like people finding proprietary formats is a surprise. (Greg would not be the only one, here.)

This comment and similar sentiments perhaps prompted Florence, the Board chair, to post a draft resolution on a File formats policy. It has not yet been posted publicly as a passed resolution.

In the end, everyone seems content enough with where we all stand, but really, we went through some serious drama to get there. Drama started by others (like, journalists) is one thing, but I don’t think it should be quite so difficult to spot which of WMF’s own announcements are going to be the fire starters.

So there you go, that’s my view of the Kaltura brouhaha.

13 February, 2008 • , ,

Comment

1

I suspect you’ll find that it’s not so much that everyone is “content” with where the situation stands, but rather that people ran out of energy to complain about it. The real test will be whether or not the Foundation staff makes the same mistakes again, which will obviously not be known for some time yet. And I don’t think anybody really got to the underside of the situation, which is to understand what the real motivation behind the “partnership” is. I still think that was never disclosed by Sue or anyone else on the staff.

As an aside, your blog skin doesn’t appear to display the date of your own posts. You might want to do something about that.

Kelly Martin · 14. February 2008, 03:17

2

Well, yeah, “content” is probably the wrong word, but most of the major concerns seem to have been addressed in a satisfactory way – to the extent that it is possible. (If you are ideologically opposed to Flash, then even Gnash is not a real answer.)

The dates are displayed in the archive, but I will tweak the main entries a bit.

pfctdayelise · 14. February 2008, 10:40

3

OK, now dates exist.

pfctdayelise · 14. February 2008, 10:48

Elsewhere on the web...

Commenting is closed for this article.

list of all posts, ever

find articles by tag

monthly archive

most popular articles

  1. [guest] Rethinking the Top Ten
  2. How to use Gmail to manage high-traffic mailing lists
  3. NLA Innovative Ideas Forum audio/video now available
  4. An alternative term for "User-generated content"
  5. Write API enabled on Wikimedia sites!
  6. Top 10 software extensions Wikimedia Commons needs in 2008
  7. Is mass collaboration all it's cracked up to be?
  8. GLAM-WIKI, day one
  9. Free MediaWiki hosting offered by Dreamhost Apps
  10. Reflections on PGIP phase 1

(from the last 30 days)