Dear Galileo, (and SJ and Morgan)
Many thanks. It reads very well - and will certainly help clarify thinking around 'groups'. Have added a few comments inline. Bishakha
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Galileo Vidoni galio2k@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all:
I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during the past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've already discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the Frankfurt meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a little bit more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or are TBD. Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is especially sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response we get now we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. I put the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or suggestions before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion from the MR working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for discussion --I'd be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.
During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator, envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters, which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within that territory.
First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to be discussed.
On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it is for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want to establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them, how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for now.
A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for territories where a Wikimedia chapter does already exist? Can we propose an horizontal relationship between chapters and partner organizations when these have a smaller area of interest and do not operate on the same basis?
Does MR need to have a position on whether these relationships should be horizontal or asymmetrical, or will these come to us with time and discussion? Also, what is the relationship between Foundation and either partner orgs or wikimedian associations on the horizontal/asymmetrical axis? I ask given the complexity of Foundation-chapter relations - I believe this is something we should anticipate, and maybe ask the same question for Foundation too.
If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it?
Is this something we really want - it implies a power hierarchy?
These are all topics were Wikimedia chapters and other groups should to be heard, as the MR working group has no authority to settle this issues but merely to identify them a propose possible solutions.
To sum it up:
== Existing organizations ==
=== Wikimedia Foundation ===
- Interest scope: global
- Territorial range: ideally none (undefined), but operates per se in
territories where chapters don't yet exist
and in India, where the Foundation will open an office this year, even though a chapter does exist there. So does some allusion need to be made to this for the sake of accuracy - and to allow this possibility for other 'priority bootstrap' regions in future?
- Representation: global
- Registered (external): yes
- Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement
- Trademarks: own
- Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
=== Wikimedia chapters ===
- Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects)
- Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not
exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational entities)
- Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all
of WM projects)
- Registered (external): yes
- Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom
- Trademarks: agreement with WMF
- Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member
fees, donations
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==
=== Partner organizations ===
- Interest scope: specific (promotion of WM projects in a determinate
language or of contents about a certain culture)
Just to push this a bit, would this scope include a partner organization that may be regional eg parts of Global South, for argument's sake, focused on 'art and culture'? Would it fall into contents about a certain culture, or like the wiki projects do we need language around 'special interest groups'
- Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive
- Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on
behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD)
- Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)
If they are non-registered, do they become associations? 9ie the next category?)
- Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body
Later on, we will have to think of and specify a recognition process.
- Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD)
- Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with chapters if registered?
(TBD, but as they don't have a territorial basis they can't do global fundraising)*, WMF grants? (TBD), chapter grants? (TBD), member fees, donations
Should we say 'multiple sources' to make clear that it doesn't have to be just one of these?
- Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about organizers and supporters
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes, overseen by WMF on
global level or chapter on national level if they exist (TBD: is there any reason why the chapter wouldn't sign such an agreement by itself? Think about language-specific subsidies)
- Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural
sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly about geography.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> A possible model would be for chapters in the region where these partners operate to offer the possibility to donate a percentage of the money to support these groups' activities --what would obviously need fundraising agreements between chapters and partner organizations. For instance, people donating to WM Irak from Irak could have the option to state that they want a percentage of their donation to support the efforts of a partner organization focused on promoting Kurdish language contents, should such an organization and WM Irak exist.
=== Wikimedian associations ===
- Interest scope: variable, undetermined
- Territorial range: variable, mostly subnational, non exclusive
Same point as for partner orgs above: should we specify subnational? What if an association was formed across three cities in three countries for the same purpose?
* Representation: non exclusive
- Registered (external): no
- Recognized (internal): yes, almost automatic, revocable
- Trademarks: case-by-case usage possible (TBD), permission by WMF or
chapters if they exist
- Origin of funds: case-by-case WMF grants possible or chapter grants if
they exist
Which means they have no independent fundraising capacity eg donations - this is fine, since they are not registered.
- Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage)
- Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet
have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility).
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal
negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements
Looks very good overall.
Best Bishakha