On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote: Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept redondant with partner organizations. But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to better see what the difference is ? For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? And if there is a chapter-to-be somewhere, already a legal entity but not yet approved by a chapter, would that be a partner or an affiliate ? One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters. But well Florence

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: While I can't speak of direct harm or benefit for the movement, I would put some distinction between the recognition process. Chapters have a board and are open to membership, how partner organizations deal with this issue and their bylaws is still left open. Before we jump head-first into this, proper consideration has to be given about the liability and the vetting procedure for this. As it stands, the approval process seems identical between chapters and partners organizations, this is not a good thing. It might be advisable to give more time to the legal dept. and ChapCom to fully vet the paperwork as it currently does for chapters, since chapters also carry a higher liability and exposure for the movement, while partner organizations are relatively independent, whatever their underlying criteria might be. Partner organization status, if without a formal registration, can be approved directly by WMF. It can save a lot of time and effort, and limit a lot of exposure for the existing chapters, not to mention make the overall process of approving partner organizations, a simpler one. Chapters have to assimilate into an existing community of established chapters, their approval can only enforce and support the new entity. We also have to decide if we want all these future organizations bunched up together, or if they will have a tiered approach to their relationship. There's probably a better reason, but this was the one that came to me. Regards Theo

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouard <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: The sense of belonging and solidarity is undermined by the position that Wikimedia organization requires country behind itself. Not all of us share position that two Wikimedian groups can cooperate just if both are symbolically linked to the state structure. That's ideologically biased and, unfortunately, not biased by our common ideology, free access to knowledge. While associations and affiliates don't sound as in-movement organizations, partner organizations and chapters sound like it.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 17:48, Florence Devouard <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I expect to see all organizations on the same territory to cooperate with each other from the beginning. I am also sure that organizations which operate on the same territory will be distinctive enough to be easily recognized. I don't expect that ChapCom and Board would be insane enough to recognize "Wikimedians in France" as partner organization, besides Wikimedia France. And possible "Esperantist Wikimedians" based in France would be distinct enough from Wikimedia France.

Hi, everyone! Alec, I share your enthusiasm about wikimedia revolution, and I also have been nagging my chapter with the idea of the shared wikivalues. I ask everyone to take this in mind as a lighthouse in the gales. Governance is not an easy way, and for sure we're going to make some big mistakes in our way. It doesn't mather, the goal is so beautiful to fight for, that it deserves some frustating moments. :) Well, it's only my humble opinion, but I think that we all have deployed too soon the seminal idea of anthere, I mean, a wikicouncil. I think that this idea will overcome some inconvenients between different ways of engagging with Wikimedia movement and legitimacy. Some reasons alleged in meta are the increase in bureaucracy and therefore a slowing in decission making. But let me say that this idea has some advantages that overcome those minor problems: * Well, some decissions have to be slow and reflexive by their own (i.e long term strategics, movement structure). Those are the kind of decissions to be taken by the wikicouncil. *Wikicouncil is the only way of representation which is full legitimate and representative of a movement who has multiple ways of participation. *Wikicouncil will be a forum to put together the different ways of advocacy. *Wikicouncil shall not increase budget as it can take place simultaneously with Wikimania. I think that the roles of the multiple entities must be very clearified in order to avoid outreach confussions, and coordination must be mandatory to get WMF approvals. Under the proper coordination of agendas and messages, I think that there is nothing to worry, and even joint apparition of chapters and other movement forms will be reinforcing in terms of outreach activities. 2012/2/14 Alec Meta <alecmeta(a)gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mathias Damour <mathias.damour(a)laposte.net>wrote;wrote: more types of affiliations to take place - formal, informal, geographic, not defined by geography, thematic etc - rather than as a 'stick' to put down or threaten chapters. That's why I'm in favour of this. Personal view. Best Bishakha

The simplest solution is to remove the Chapters from their role in electing members of the Board. There will always be disparities between chapters - in funding, representation, organization, professionalism, activity, etc. The concept of Chapter elected Board seats will only become more fraught. Thomas' comment about the U.S. is a perfect harbinger of things to come - international balance of power concerns mixed with a smug insult predicated on ignorance.

Hiya all, It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions we have talked about how we should try to engage volunteers and let them do what they are best at - I still stand behind that. That however also means that we should recognize that the chapters model will not work for every single person or group of persons. This does not necessarily have to correlate with a 'shift of power' or disengaging chapters - it *should* be about engaging more volunteers, and allowing them to do great work with the best tools available. So let us focus on that. I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF: 1) Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day 2) Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow into a chapter The group 1) will probably mainly be the case because of either legal reasons or because there is not enough critical mass yet. I don't think anyone disagrees we should give them the space they need. This includes for example Wikimedia Croatia, Kazachstan and Georgia. The group 2) will in my expectation consist of groups that are indeed more aligned along cultural ideas. To mind come Amical (as discussed) and Esperantists. Now this is where things apparently become complicated, because somehow things can get conflicting when they start to compete with chapters. There are a few things relevant here in the recognition process by X-committee: * What will be the rights will determine to large extent how high the threshold will be * If there is a geographical component (explicit or not) there should, imho, be a consultation with the relevant other organizations overlapping with that component. I don't know if it is realistic to go as far as a veto, but it should definitely be a very serious part of the process. This should probably be reciprocal - if a chapter is to be recognized other groups in that area should be consulted, too. * We should have clear to what extent trademarks and fundraising rights go - both for chapters and non-chapter organizations. * We have to remain very careful about political statements. I am personally a bit hesistant with recognizing any organization which is politically oriented. Hence, this analysis should also be part of the recognition process of any movement organization. To give an entirely obvious example: I would not feel comfortable if any organization would be founded based on ethnically oriented principles, or would be discriminating in its membership based on principles that would be considered illegal in most countries (even if it is not illegal in that specific country). Another obvious example: I would feel extremely uncomfortable if any of these organizations would only allow men to vote in their assemblies or if there are religious requirements. * In general I would like to find a way to ensure that relations are good between the organization and the communities and relevant other organizations. I doubt we ever can formalize that into a demand, but all efforts should go into this of course. Probably there are some more criteria which are currently already checked upon (although not formally in a checklist) by the recognition of chapters that should be part of this. I think it would be helpful if chapcom can tackle that issue in it's berlin meeting. Anyway, just some thoughts. As a final remark, I sincerely hope that we will not fall in the trap of building policies around a single case - but rather focus on the big picture and then afterwards test that picture on the single scenario. Amical is a complicated case, and it would be very easy to loose ourselves in who's at fault, the details and what solutions do not work in their case. Warmly, Lodewijk No dia 13 de Fevereiro de 2012 15:29, marcos <tal_tor9(a)yahoo.es> escreveu:

I think that there is a 3) : Organizations that want to deal with the chapter of their country rather than with the WMF for contacts, advice and sometimes financial support for their actions. Mathias Damour Une messagerie gratuite, garantie à vie et des services en plus, ça vous tente ? Je crée ma boîte mail www.laposte.net