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