I had no clue this was happening! What a pleasant surprise. Congrats!
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 26, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdevitd@gmail.com wrote:
You can see the questions AffCom put to us, and my replies, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/US/Consortium#AffCom_questi...
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