Sorry my poor wording there, they shouldn't be separate entities but sub branches of the one entity WMA, purely as away of overcoming the issues of distances.<br><br> <br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/10/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername">
Brianna Laugher</b> <<a href="mailto:brianna.laugher@gmail.com">brianna.laugher@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 12/10/2007, Gnangarra <<a href="mailto:gnangarra@gmail.com">gnangarra@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Its a good idea to have individual chapters<br>><br>> The way I thought we are working is to create WMA first, then WMA helps the
<br>> states create chapters during 2008, once created the states would have a<br>> representative on the WMA committee, realising that not every state is going<br>> to have the critical mass to support a local chapter initially anyway.
<br><br>I was going to say that I think WMF expect max one chapter per nation<br>state, then I remembered about the recent American Pennsylvania<br>chapter talk. So is it one chapter per legal jurisdiction?<br><br>I am not sure that I think multiple legal entity chapters within
<br>Australia would be a great idea. What with the small population. I<br>would prefer formal state structures within a single legal entity<br>being Wikimedia Australia, I think. The European chapters for example<br>have one per nation despite larger populations than us. I am not too
<br>convinced that the distance necessitates separate legal entities.<br><br>On a related note,<br>For those who missed it, Florence recently reported on foundation-l<br>about the recent Board meeting. Her email is here:<br>
<a href="http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/20666">http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/20666</a><br><br>Specifically:<br><br>>><br>Sue Gardner began the<br>discussion by presenting a possible strategy to clarify the relationship
<br>between WMF and Wikimedia Chapters. The strategy outlines 4 types of<br>relationships, essentially ranging from business development with<br>revenue sharing over traditional non-profit activities to informal<br>affilitations.
<br>Far ranging discussion resulted, hmmm, with obvious agreement resulting.<br>(...) We also agreed on the<br>need for a systematic process of gathering feedback from the chapters on<br>their expectations & perceived purpose should precede a strategy draft
<br>from WMF about the relationship with chapters.<br><<<br><br>So, we are not a chapter, and they won't be getting feedback from us<br>:) but it is worth thinking about anyway.<br><br>To me the purpose of a chapter, as in creating and maintaing a local
<br>legal entity, is mainly two-fold, or maybe they are in fact the same<br>fold:<br>1) To gain the benefits from official/formal legal status within<br>Australia. This includes potentially access to grants and funding,<br>
charity status to make donations (to us?) in AU$ tax deductible,<br>potential partnerships with Australian groups such as universities.<br>Also, greater respect and visibility.<br>2) To encourage and enable face to face meetings of Wikimedians on a
<br>greater scale than local meetups. Although this is sometimes derided<br>as merely "throwing parties" I think it is much more powerful than<br>that. Connections made or cemented face to face are much stronger than
<br>those only through email or wiki. That goes for connections within the<br>group of Wikimedians and also between non-Wikimedians and "friends<br>and allies" such as free software people, free content people,
<br>education people. Such meetings can boost everyone's enthusiasm and<br>motivation and also spread disparate knowledge quickly and effectively<br>over short, sharp bursts.<br><br>Some other ideas...<br>3) (probably should be 0) To carry out the WMF's vision and mission
<br>within Australian territory and within an Australian context. This<br>could mean Wikibooks(Wikiversity) adapted to Australian (ahem state)<br>curricula. It could mean Wikisource special topics on historical<br>Australian documents. It could also mean specialised DVDs or books
<br>being produced and distributed, collecting (eg) Wikipedia articles on<br>Australian topics. [I personally would be delighted to see a disc of<br>Spoken Wikipedia as recorded by Australians... there are a few Aussies<br>
who have done them and they are delightful to listen to.] It could<br>also mean talking to educators or students about a) how to use<br>Wikimedia resources effectively and b) the benefits of using wikis and<br>c) The benefits of using free licenses (creating free content).
<br><br>4) To lobby the Australian government for reduced application of<br>copyright on Australian government-created works. To lobby Australian<br>public archives and collections for greater access to works in their<br>
collections especially public domain works and digital access.<br><br>This point is my hobby-horse and also the most different from how WMF<br>acts in the US today so likely the most controversial.<br>However... through Wikimedia I have become aware of how we, the Aus
<br>public, are unnecessarily dudded and deprived of works that are owned<br>by us (or by no one), collected for us, created by us, and yet somehow<br>are not recognised as belong to us.<br><br>Why did I become aware of this? Because the US has an amazing attitude:
<br><a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000105----000-.html">http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000105----000-.html</a><br>that greatly benefits Americans... that greatly benefits Wikimedia...
<br>that greatly benefits the whole world.<br><br>The US appears to be a world leader in this regard. Europe's space<br>agency the ESA is stupid and releases their images under a<br>non-commercial license. I will sincerely celebrate the day that
<br>Wikimedian lobbying helps to overturn this.<br><br>Those of us who have used state libraries' or museums' online<br>collections will be aware that they frequently claim to have<br>reproduction or other rights on public domain material. This is wrong
<br>and misleading... instead of acting as caretakers on our behalf they<br>frequently act as scolding nannies wrapping us on the knuckles for<br>daring to touch. So a related effort would be lobbying for greater<br>funding for digitisation of all kinds of archives.
<br><br>5) To lobby and promote the use of free licenses in academia.<br>The amount of information locked away in subscription-only journals is<br>nothing short of scandalous...education, via access to information, is<br>
nothing short of revolutionary. What is the point of academia if not<br>to ultimately increase the public good. If so, it should be available<br>to the public.<br><br>I am not totally sold on the use of free licenses in, say, personal
<br>art and photography. Things created by private citizens. But in the<br>case of academia, science, education, government, and *works that are<br>already free* due to copyright expiration, it is nothing short of<br>outrageous to make things expensive and difficult to access.
<br><br>Again this point is more removed from what WMF does in the US, but I<br>think it has pretty clear links to the WMF vision.<br><br>So that's my thoughts about it.<br><br>cheers,<br>Brianna<br><br>--<br>They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
<br><a href="http://modernthings.org/">http://modernthings.org/</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Wikimediaau-l mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org">Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
</a><br><a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l">http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l</a><br></blockquote></div><br>