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.
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. Anyway, I might be wrong that this is the reasoning of Samuel on this timeline, but that would for me be a valid argument :) 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).
Best,
Lodewijk
No dia Sábado, 11 de Fevereiro de 2012, Béria
Limaberialima@gmail.com escreveu:
She meant that you pushing a decision BEFORE the Chapters meeting by placing a deadline before the meeting. And I second: What is the rush?
_____
Béria Lima
(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.
On 11 February 2012 04:41, Samuel Klein
<sj@wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, aude <
aude.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Samuel Klein <
sj@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> The Wikimedia Board is drafting two resolutions to recognize new
>> models of affiliation. The text will be posted on Meta for discussion
>> and improvement, between now and 10 March.
>
> Will you please send this to internal-l? Is there really any consensus or broad support for this?
I believe there is broad support for recognizing new models for
affiliation; if there are implementation details for which there is
not such support, I expect they will be sorted out in public
discussion.
> And how about discussion at the chapter meeting?
> Maybe a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?
This was put out in advance of the chapter meeting, to lead to
discussion there.
A joint session is a good idea, do you mean specifically about new
affiliations?
SJ