You can see the questions AffCom put to us, and my replies, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/US/Consortium#AffCom_questions

The term of the recognition is the last question in the list, and Bence (CCed) commented that "(default is a renewable one year term; I expect in your case it would also be "1 year")". I just accepted that suggestion and didn't go dig any deeper into the implications or other options, because it didn't seem like a big deal. It is similar to the standard chapter agreement language: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_Agreements/2007_template#9._Duration_and_revocation>. Note that user groups are not typically incorporated and do not need bylaws, but there may still be other reasons (trademark usage and activity level, for example) for having a periodic review. If you are curious about why AffCom does that, though, they seem fairly responsive to questions.

Dominic

On 26 June 2013 13:15, Jeremy Baron <jeremy@tuxmachine.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Sven Manguard <svenmanguard@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but is the one-year term a standard now for Wikimedia
> entities, or is this a special case?
>
> It strikes me as rather strange.

My assumption was that it was an organization still in a very early
stage and that it would be reevaluated after it developed more. e.g.
maybe it's not incorporated yet and it would be reevaluated after
incorporation.

But maybe I misunderstand how the process works in general or maybe
this particular case is special in some way.

Anyway, agreed, great news.

-Jeremy

_______________________________________________
GLAM-US mailing list
GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us

_______________________________________________
GLAM-US mailing list
GLAM-US@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us