On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Galileo Vidoni <galio2k@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe we are conflating two separate issues here. The example of WM iraq and a Kurdish entity doesn't take into account the geo-political situation surrounding ethnic groups in Iraq, a similar situation might exist in Ethnic Serbian or even Catalan entity to a variable degree. Either way, supporting one over the other would be making a stance that I agree no one in the group would be willing to take.
So, the question becomes about fundraising, how one sub-national organization can share funding from a national one. The solution suggested earlier is giving an option for sub-national entities to opt-in to the national fundraiser. Although this might seem like a simple solution, it would bring a lot of issues associated with it. Chapters and national entities would not like to receive funding with strings attached to it, the sub-national entities might not have a good relation with the chapter and would be placed directly under them in this hierarchy. There are a lot of geo-political, social, legal issues with the sub-national entities. An alternative solution would be using the foundation to bridge this gap as an outside, completely unaffiliated entity for some of the sensitive issues.
Theo
Yes, I agree that the issue is a very sensitive one. It's precisely because of that that the "partner organizations" idea has developed. We should provide these groups who for one reason or another don't want to integrate into a national/state-level organization with an alternative that enables them to be recognized as an independent entity, and yet not a "national" chapter, because we are not here to contravene the UN. We shouldn't attempt to solve Spain's internal problems and we cannot declare Catalonia the 193rd member state of the United Nations*, but we can offer "Catalan-minded people" an alternative so that they can focus on what they want and do not clash with the Spanish national chapter --because they are a different type of organization, not chapter nor national.
Organizations who are not representing a state can't sign fundraising agreements with WMF by themselves, and attempting to do so would be not only a legal mess but a *serious* problem with Wikimedia chapters. Offering these organizations the possibility to establish funding agreements with chapters would enable them to have a source of money they otherwise simply wouldn't have. They are not obliged to do so, but I guess they'll prefer such kind of agreements --Gomą has even written one. If it is the chapter who refuses to cooperate with relevant partners and there are no real reasons for such an attitude the chapter would be going against its role and the ChapCom could ultimately evaluate the situation.
Regarding WMF grants to partner organizations... Yes, but don't forget that we have another trouble spot here. What if a partner organization and a chapter request similar, if not overlapping, grants? What if it is that chapter who is best suited to fund the partner organization's project and not WMF? What if a chapter has some objection to do? We should discuss this further in Berlin.
Best,
galio
* I know it's obvious, but have in mind that WMES has Catalan and Catalan-speaking members and has organized events in Barcelona, i.e. it already overlaps with the proposal for a independent Catalan entity. I say this to insist in that we should consider that many "partner organizations" will be politically motivated efforts and we can't do very much to prevent it, but we can try to channel that into something that is ultimately productive in light of our goals as a movement.
Thanks Galileo.
This is probably something to consider for later but my impression is there is a whole spectrum of partner organizations in the movement. Having a single heading might not be ideal for later, this issue probably might be re-visited later on considering it would govern what kind of rights and authorization an organization might have. For example, grouping cultural groups, sub-national chapters and other such organization in a single heading doesn't give a lot of room to maneuver.
I have proposed a Tier system for all organizations in the movement, National chapters occupying the first tier and sub-national chapters the second and so on. We can assign different levels of authorization each tier entity would have, from trademark use to fundraising, most of it could be governed by the Tier system.
As I said earlier, this probably might fall out of the scope of this discussion, and since we're pressed for time, maybe it could be re-considered at a later juncture.
Theo