Sure. I am dashing to catch a flight to San Francisco, but one of us will reply to your other email on what will be presented at the board meeting 3-4 Feb.
Bye for now, Bishakha
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Alice Wiegand me.lyzzy@googlemail.comwrote:
Bishakha, may I copy these two paragraphs to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles/charter respectively http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles/summary/models where they could help to understand the board's questions on the drafts and hopefully will lead to some discussion?
Regards, Alice.
On 18 December 2011 07:22, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
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