A few comments:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
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?
For now I think we should simply define the group, and then work out the symmetry questions later. We do already face this question when comparing 15-person chapters from small regions to 400-person chapters from large ones.
The large partner organizations may often be larger than small geographic chapters.
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.
Agreed. We can list this among the interesting questions for the future.
-- I think partner organizations should be registered as a legal entity with an explicit public (and open, non-discriminatory) way for people to join or otherwise get involved; they might also share basic standards for activity and transparency, as Chapters do. I expect it would be just as difficult to become a partner org as a Chapter.
-- There are a few things Chapters organize on their own - an annual meeting, and a biannual vote for Trustees. We should consider as a movement if and how partner orgs would be welcome in these two processes.
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.
Right.
=== 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?
Perhaps "operates globally, and fulfills much of the role of a chapter in territories where chapters don't exist". In territories where chapters do exist, the Foundation does not fulfill those roles (generally handing off relevant opportunities to chapters there) but may work in other capacities.
=== 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'
Yes, any combination of the above. We might later want to suggest that these groups not be too narrow (just as we would suggest that regional chapters not be too tiny).
- Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)
If they are non-registered, do they become associations? (ie the next category?)
I'm with Bishakha here. Registered: yes (for a partner org), until then the group is simply an Association.
- Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body
Later on, we will have to think of and specify a recognition process.
We might propose a specific idea to ChapCom to see if the current committee would be willing to grow a bit to handle these other groups as well. I think a separate group will be needed to recognize Associations (and perhaps also work with WikiProjects that don't yet have a named association)
- 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?
Yes; I would explicitly include WMF grants, however. One of the benefits of being registered and authorized by the Foundation is that it makes receiving grants easier.
- 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)
I think we should recommend explicit cooperation and communication agreements b/t groups working in the same area (geographic or topical) -- that they will keep one another informed and work out any overlap of mission. This can be part of the review process before such groups are approved. 'oversight' may not be the right word -- the WMF doesn't 'oversee' European chapter engagements with the EU, for instance, even though that is an international effort, but there is good communication b/t Chapters and the Foundation via internal-l when such discussions are taking place.
<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.
That is possible. Or there could be a great political and social disagreement between a non-Kurdish "WM Iraq" and a "Kurdish Wikimedian Organization", and they could refuse to share resources (even if they had a nominal cooperation agreement to share information).
=== 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?
That sounds fine to me. These to me are like Special Interest Groups -- they can take any shape, size, or structure.
- 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.
Right. They could still have membership and dues and such if they like, and even founding documents and charters [like some big WikiProjects!], but it would be more informal than a registered group.
Jon writes:
At some point do we need to square the circle ... who can give (or take away) approval for different levels of Wikimedia groups ... who is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts?
The Board should give or take away Authorization for the authorized groups (chapters now; partner orgs in the future). A larger committee (ChapCom for chapters) can advise here and give or take away approval that a group is ready for that recognition. A separate committee may be appropriate for Associations, and could directly handle giving and taking away of inclusion on the roster of Associations; something the Board could overrule after the fact in rare cases.
If conflicts become an issue, we can revisit that question then. (ChapCom handles certain conflicts now, in guiding the development of new chapters.)
SJ