Movementroles February 2012

movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org

16 participants
8 discussions

Movement roles meeting in Berlin
by Alice Wiegand 03 Mar '12

03 Mar '12

Hi all, I've been asked from organizers of the Wikimedia Conference for the second time now, if Movement Roles is planning a meeting. There have been registrations and questions from people involved in movement roles, but it seems as if there are still a lot of questions. Sadly I have no idea who else want to join a meeting in Berlin, except of Anirudh, who also has contacted me personally. I don't believe that we are getting further if we don't start to inform us and the organizers about the what and the who. What I definitely think is that the movement roles meeting on Thursday should not be a back door to join the chapters conference. There is a limitation of participants and it is up to the chapters to define such general conditions for their meeting. If movement roles should be part of the conference we need to discuss this with the program organizer Harel (in Cc) and only if there is space for MR, those who are not representatives of chapters or Foundation should join the general meeting. (That's a personal opinion, not discussed with anyone before.) I don't have an idea if there is any budget for a movement roles meeting, so this is still one of the open questions. SJ, do you have more information? Another one is, who would like to attend the meeting on thursday. To fix the latter I've created http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Working_group_meeting_2012-3-… Please sign in if you want to join the meeting. Regards, Alice.

13 31

Starting to wrap up
by Alice Wiegand 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

Dear all, as SJ summarized on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Minutes_and_transcript we discussed some important topics at our last IRC meeting. During our work we have seen that it is neither reasonable nor possible to separate movement roles from other discussions with impact on Wikimedia, the movement and its players or even from other people who are part of the whole thing. We agreed that we want to wrap up this phase of movement roles not without leading to the next stage where these ideas will be gathered and pursued by those who are affected, at places where these discussions already have found more resonance than in the movement roles project. This needs some follow up and some things to be done. And it has to be done soon if we want to draw a line under this phase of movement roles at the Wikimedia Conference. It's our responsibility, there will be nobody else doing this instead of us. As some of you may have noticed I've started to clean up the movement roles' pages. There were a lot of moves in the past. We started with the prefix "Movement roles group", switched to "Movement roles project" to end with "Movement roles". There were a lot of simple cosmetical moves too, only to capitalize or de-capitalize words. And nobody ever fixed the remaining redirects or the links on the pages. This made it absolutely impossible to figure out where we have duplicates or missing links, how pages are connected and how to find them. I hope to finish with this tomorrow and let you know. To collect and arrange the things we agreed to do, I've created http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Wrap_up It supports to pick up a smaller tasks, more concrete and most important to prepare a proper finalization. Help is appreciated, please complete and rearrange the list. And choose something you would like to work on the next weeks. ;) Best, Alice.

3 2

Meeting: 1730 UTC Feb 12 (and chat on Feb 2)
by Samuel Klein 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

As all respondents to the Doodle can make it then, our next meeting will be on 1530 UTC on Sunday Feb 12, in #movement-roles on freenode. Those who are around may want to come to IRC tomorrow at the same time (1530'1630 UTC), at least joan, lodewijk and I should be free then. SJ

6 12

Recognizing new affiliations
by Samuel Klein 12 Feb '12

12 Feb '12

The Wikimedia Board is drafting two resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation. The text will be posted on Meta for discussion and improvement, between now and 10 March. == Expansion of movement affiliation models == In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement: *: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement. *: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia. == Recognizing new affiliation models == In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover: * recognizing all group models * mentoring chapters and partner organiations * reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation. This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting. References: * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope|]] * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure|]] Sample charter: * [[wmf:Audit charter|]]

5 8

Updates on Meta
by Samuel Klein 11 Feb '12

11 Feb '12

Dear list, A reminder: we have a meeting scheduled for this Sunday at 1730 UTC. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Meeting:_Sunday.2C_12_Fe… Some topics related to movement roles were raised at last weekend's Board meeting. These are summarized on the same page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Issues_raised_at_the_Feb… Standards for accountability and standards for Wikimedia committees are being drafted on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Audit_committee/Draft_Accountability_standar… Two resolutions related to new models will be drafted in a similar fashion over the coming month, with input from the current ChapCom. (ChapCom is being asked to expand its scope to include new models, and to expressly help mentor existing groups.) I will post a link to the draft once it is up. Looking forward to seeing many of you on Sunday, SJ -- skype:metasj +1 617 529 4266

2 4

Aside: moving to a public list?
by Samuel Klein 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

Would anyone object to moving to a public mailing list? It would not include historical archives. I know that we have little traffic on the list, and are wrapping things up, but it would be good to have all of our channels public so long as we continue using them. Regards, SJ

2 1

agenda for next weekend, and reviewing MR recommendations
by Samuel Klein 02 Feb '12

02 Feb '12

As Galio pointed out, we may want to express ideas differently today than we did over the summer. If anyone disagrees with the language that ended up in the current drafts on Meta, please say so- take out the controversial pieces, move them to the talk page, propose problems and solutions. On the agenda page, please note, for the areas you have been working on: What do you want to see accomplished by this Chapters meeting? What can the Board do to facilitate this work? What other support or input do you need? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#February_2012_meeting SJ

1 0

Fwd: Where are we standing now?
by Bishakha Datta 01 Feb '12

01 Feb '12

Hello, Am replying to your questions inline to the best of my ability. SJ may be in a better position to provide more info. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Alice Wiegand <me.lyzzy(a)googlemail.com>wrote: > Hi SJ, hi all, > > the last input to this mailing list was made by SJ a day before the > board meeting in October. Phoebe announced the minutes ( > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2011-10-07 ) at the end of > November and stated on internal-l that there where no decisions or > votes regarding movement roles. Nothing else. > Movement Roles was allocated 1.5 hours at the board meeting. That is nowhere near enough to seriously discuss the three items that Sam placed before the full board: - Endorsing a movement charter: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/charter - Endorsing three new models for organizations, in addition to the current Chapters: partner organizations, informal associations and affiliates - Appointing an Affiliations Committee, which would include members from the Board, to expand on the current Chapters Committee model by working with all types of Wikimedia organizations. Board members asked some broader questions since there wasn't enough time to go into the substance of it: How specific does a charter need to be in order to be useful? Is something that is very general useful enough? How can one strike a balance between stating general principles and ensuring they are worded tightly enough to mean something substantial? How long should a charter be? While most trustees felt this should be tight and concise, similar to what's being developed, a minority were in favour of a much longer charter, upto 100 pages. How will entities in the movement signal their acceptance of the charter? No conclusions were reached on any of these - perhaps this is something for the MR workgroup to consider. The proposed new models and the proposed affiliations committee were discussed together. There was general support for the idea of having new models. On the proposed models themselves, there were questions about the specific 'names': partner orgs, informal associations, affiliates - it was suggested that the names be reviewed again for precision and to ensure there is no confusion about the type of group. For example, 'cultural groups' or 'cultural chapters'? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/summary/New_Models Jon Huggett was also present at this part of the meeting. As far as I know, his contract ended on 31 October - but I wonder if he is still on this list. (Jon, are you here?) Following this, an IRC Board Discussion was held on 6 Nov to carry the New Models/Affiliations Committee discussion forward. Here, the main question was about the nature of the Affiliations Committee - Is it to be a board committee? A staff committee? What form could this committee take? We were tasked to ask the MR workgroup to think further about these. I am reconstructing the main points from board emails/memory. SJ has the draft summary of the IRC chat and can add more. > Is there something going on currently? Can we hear some of the voices > of your board discussion? Are you planning next steps in the process? > We definitely need to plan next steps in the process together - this has languished enough. SJ and I have had two very short conversations about this; he has been really busy, but I'm hopeful that we can restart the planning process from the coming week. > The preparation for the chapters meeting is going to begin soon. If > the movement roles project still exists, there is no way to not > present something or reanimate it at that meeting. What are we going > to do? > > Let us start discussing this once we restart the planning process; my personal goal is to get Movement Roles moving again before the year is out, along with an agreed process in place for doing so. Agreed by those who are part of the MR working group, I mean. (Very similar to what you state in your next para, and I'm prepared to put in time towards this.) All ideas welcome. > Unfortunately I feel not only frustrated about the process but also > uninformed about the current status. And I mean both, the status of > the movement roles process (which doesn't really look like doing any > kind of processing) and the status of this group. Is there still a > group existing? Is there still interest in having a group (formerly > called core team)? What are the tasks the group is responsible for? In > my last mail I talked about burying and reanimation and more than then > I would prefer to put an end to it at this stage and officially > restart next year with a new team and defined roles and tasks. > > I fully share your frustration. This has been a stop-start process right from the beginning, moving in fits and starts. And many times when we seem to be getting somewhere, we then go into hibernation. I am tired of the number of times I have had to go back and re-read every single thing on the MR pages on meta to refresh my memory before a re-start. And I agree that the last three months has been particularly frustrating, with hardly any movement or information or anything happening. I can only apologize on behalf of all the three board members who are on Movement Roles: none of us took the initiative to move things forward or to at least provide information to this list.(This is my belated attempt at doing so). I think the three of us need to sort out our roles among ourselves more clearly, so we can provide back-ups to each other when one of us may be exceptionally busy. We don't have such a system in place and we need one if we are to move ahead purposively, as opposed to in fits and starts. About whether or not the MR group still exists, there are certainly individuals who seem interested in seeing this through. About the tasks that the group is responsible for, SJ and I had a brief chat yesterday and we both feel it would good for individuals in the group to take more responsibility for seeing through specific pieces or recommendations from MR that they feel passionately about. For instance, smaller workgroups could be formed around each of these recommendations with specific mandates. Others who are interested in these but not part of the MR list could come in too. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/recommendations/board and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/recommendations for the current set of proposed recommendations. So overall, I agree that something needs to be done, something that can move this forward meaningfully towards a conclusion. I hope that we will have more specifics later this week, but until then, it would be most excellent if anyone on this list could put forward their thoughts, ideas, suggestions etc. so that all these could be considered as part of the 're-imagining' of Movement Roles. Best Bishakha

8 15

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Movementroles February 2012