Pessoal,<br><br>Michael Snow, presidente do conselho da Fundação, começou hoje uma discussão na Foundation-list sobre o caso do "capítulo" brasileiro (mensagem copiada abaixo). Seria muito bacana compartilharmos nossos comentários por lá também.<br>
<br>abs,<br>Thomas<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael Snow</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wikipedia@verizon.net">wikipedia@verizon.net</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:54 AM<br>Subject: [Foundation-l] A chapters-related question<br>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <<a href="mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org">foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a>><br>
<br><br>Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking<br>
at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with.<br>
(What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was<br>
approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since<br>
decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time.<br>
However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific<br>
case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage<br>
grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into<br>
the chapters framework?<br>
<br>
There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups<br>
that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite<br>
the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to<br>
organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian<br>
situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better<br>
sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe<br>
there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and<br>
continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and<br>
formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to<br>
have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after<br>
it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm<br>
wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this<br>
as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).<br>
<br>
Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this<br>
something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in?<br>
How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized<br>
groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and<br>
compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?<br>
<br>
--Michael Snow<br>
<br>
</div><br>