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.
== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==
In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement:
*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement.
*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia.
== Recognizing new affiliation models ==
In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover: * recognizing all group models * mentoring chapters and partner organiations * reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups
The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.
This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.
References: * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope|]] * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure|]]
Sample charter: * [[wmf:Audit charter|]]
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?
While its great that you want input on the wording, I have heard enough concerns that it's a bit alarming the board is going forth with the movement roles stuff despite the concerns.
And why March 10? And how about discussion at the chapter meeting? Maybe a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?
Katie
== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==
In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement:
*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement.
*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia.
== Recognizing new affiliation models ==
In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover:
- recognizing all group models
- mentoring chapters and partner organiations
- reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups
The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.
This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.
References:
- [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope|]]
- [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure|]]
Sample charter:
- [[wmf:Audit charter|]]
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM, 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?
While its great that you want input on the wording, I have heard enough concerns that it's a bit alarming the board is going forth with the movement roles stuff despite the concerns.
And why March 10? And how about discussion at the chapter meeting? Maybe a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?
Katie
Agree.
Best, galio
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?
Hi Katie. It should be sent out this weekend. 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
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* 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 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?
Hi Katie. It should be sent out this weekend. 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
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
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.comescreveu:
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* 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 04:41, Samuel Klein <sj@wikimedia.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'sj@wikimedia.org');>
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, aude <aude.wiki@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'aude.wiki@gmail.com');>> wrote:
On Feb 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Samuel Klein <sj@wikimedia.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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?
Hi Katie. It should be sent out this weekend. 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
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org');> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Define is one thing, but I do believe would be better have the final decision in person (Maybe in Paris if Berlin is too far away.) _____ *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 18:35, 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.
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.comescreveu:
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* 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 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?
Hi Katie. It should be sent out this weekend. 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
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
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.
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.
movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org