Thanks for that information. The resolution
doesn't actually spell out that
AffCom is not working on the partnerships, except implicitly by failing to
mention movement partners along with the other three (which I hadn't even
realized on first reading). Will the movement roles discussion at the Board
meeting be resolving the partnership process too, or is it mostly just
about AffCom?
Dominic
On 27 June 2012 14:15, Samuel Klein <sj(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Dominic,
A draft of the AffCom charter and plan have been shared with the
Board; I believe a final draft will be shared (and then published?)
within the week. It is on the agenda for the Board's July meeting.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/July_11,_2012
AffCom is not taking on recognition of partners, at least initially
(as indicated in the same resolution you quote). Right now the
Foundation and Chapters have separate processes for forming
partnerships and recognizing those partners. It was suggested that a
WMF staff member oversee the process for recognizing partners, but
that remains to be finalized and aligned with existing process.
SJ
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
<mcdevitd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The Board's resolution for the new
Affiliations Committee says that "The
proposed charter and plan should be submitted to the Board by 15 June,
for
approval by its July 2012 meeting." Did that
ever happen? I'm glad that
Wikimedia CAT has been able to start the thematic organization
application,
and that there is a preliminary process in place
for that and the user
groups (along with the pre-existing chapter process), but what about
movement partners?
Dominic
On 21 June 2012 11:06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Forwarding on behalf of Bence.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bence Damokos <bdamokos(a)gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM
> Subject: [Movementroles] Input on new models
>
> Hi all,
>
> Currently, the Chapters/Affiliations Committee is considering the
> procedural elements needed for processing applications for the new
> types of affiliates, the actual substance of the process largely
> depend on the requirements and definition we use.
>
> I would appreciate if you could take a look at a number of wiki pages
> I have started [based on the similar pages for chapters and the
> conclusions of this group] and provide feedback (which could range
> from "seems good" to suggestions and actual edits for changes). My aim
> is not to restart any debates that we have already concluded, rather
> to make sure that the documents created reflect the final consensus
> and nothing is left out and nothing controversial is added.
>
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations (if
> anyone can create a new map that shows the Amical regions, that would
> be appreciated, as well)
>
>
>
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_thematic_organizatio…
>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Groups
>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_user_group_creation_guide
>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_user_groups
>
>
>> Thank you,
>> Best,
>> Bence
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617
529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: