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.