Office of Advocate missing

It was a joke. My point was that some commenters seem to expect from the 'Resolution:Openness' too much: they seem to have expected to see a ready-to-use recipe how to make everything OK, and make it right now. Well, the document must be read for what it is: a mission statement, a "new-year resolution". It must be taken on a personal level, not on bureaucratic level. Making rules less complicates or more complicated and then enforcing them is useless for advancement of this mission. An extreme case was communism. The ultimate goal was noble: to make all people equal, good, and happy. But to make it "fast and now" the solution was to kill all who was not equal, good, or happy, rather than to wait for people to gradually become good, equal and happy. While capitalism does not look ideal society, there is a vast difference between 19th century, with teenagers working 12 hours a day, and today. Just the same, I say, en: wikipedia has changed a lot in 10 years. And it will continue to change. And the goal of any mission statement is to nudge the course of change in right direction, rather to prescribe some rules and laws. Altenmann 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)