I gave my personal opinion one hour before your mail Samuel. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 11 February 2012 19:41, Samuel Klein sj@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Béria,
I think it depends what depends on this decision. I can very well imagine that many decisions in fund dissemination depend on who exactly is
involved
in this movement of ours. For that discussion it would be helpful to have already a good definition of the groups - then we can have a constructive discussion next about what the rights and obligations of each of these groups (and the WMF) would be to each other and in general. So if (*if*)
we
want to have the discussion about fund dissemination in Berlin, it would make a lot of sense to me to decide on these definitions (a little while) before the meeting. Unless you would be fine to have that discussion
about
funds without knowing who exactly is in this movement.
I agree with this - clarity is important for the sake of these discussions.
However the new affiliations would have limited impact on funds dissemination; any group that would be recognized as a new affiliation can already get funds through an existing channel. Recognizing other affiliations primarily makes it easier for groups to use the trademarks, and for the movement to give social recognition to a group before it passes the high bar of 'critical mass' of effort.
Another reason (less important) could be that it would be helpful if
chapcom
could implement some parts of this in its procedures at its face to face meeting in Berlin, too.
We can't keep pushing all decisions to Berlin, because that would simply result in an ineffective meeting.
These two reasons are more relevant to working this out in advance of Berlin. There are details to discuss and sort out about affiliations, but there are larger issues that will require face-to-face discussion.
Lodewijk writes:
The question would the be however, is there a good reason to wait? Are there strong disagreements? (I know there are some parts of it which we disagreed on within chapcom, because of the practical implementations).
I would like to know the answer as well. Any practical problems can be amended or changed. Are there philosophical disagreements?
Sam.