Dear all:
I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during the past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've already discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the Frankfurt meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a little bit more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or are TBD. Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is especially sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response we get now we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. I put the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or suggestions before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion from the MR working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for discussion --I'd be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.
During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator, envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters, which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within that territory.
First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to be discussed.
On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it is for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want to establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them, how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for now.
A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for 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? If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it? 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.
To sum it up:
== Existing organizations ==
=== Wikimedia Foundation === * Interest scope: global * Territorial range: ideally none (undefined), but operates per se in territories where chapters don't yet exist * Representation: global * Registered (external): yes * Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement * Trademarks: own * Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations * Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
=== Wikimedia chapters === * Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects) * Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational entities) * Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all of WM projects) * Registered (external): yes * Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom * Trademarks: agreement with WMF * Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member fees, donations * Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==
=== Partner organizations === * Interest scope: specific (promotion of WM projects in a determinate language or of contents about a certain culture) * Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive * Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD) * Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD) * Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body * Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD) * 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 * 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)
* Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly about geography.
<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.
=== Wikimedian associations === * Interest scope: variable, undetermined * Territorial range: variable, mostly subnational, non exclusive * Representation: non exclusive * Registered (external): no * 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 * Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage) * Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility). * Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements
hi Galileo,
thank you for the email - i think it is helpful. Especially the explanation. If you send this out, I would like to suggest to include a very specific question on top - and ask it again at the end for people to respond to. So not general like "please respond to" but rather "what should we do with". That could hopefully trigger some discussion.
I would also suggest to add a short note on informal Wikipedian groups like Wikiprojects, with a statement that those fall outside the scope of this process and that we don't want to tie them down and limit them.
Lodewijk
2011/2/28 Galileo Vidoni galio2k@gmail.com
Dear all:
I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during the past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've already discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the Frankfurt meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a little bit more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or are TBD. Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is especially sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response we get now we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. I put the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or suggestions before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion from the MR working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for discussion --I'd be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.
During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator, envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters, which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within that territory.
First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to be discussed.
On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it is for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want to establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them, how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for now.
A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for 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? If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it? 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.
To sum it up:
== Existing organizations ==
=== Wikimedia Foundation ===
- Interest scope: global
- Territorial range: ideally none (undefined), but operates per se in
territories where chapters don't yet exist
- Representation: global
- Registered (external): yes
- Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement
- Trademarks: own
- Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
=== Wikimedia chapters ===
- Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects)
- Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not
exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational entities)
- Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all
of WM projects)
- Registered (external): yes
- Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom
- Trademarks: agreement with WMF
- Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member
fees, donations
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==
=== Partner organizations ===
- Interest scope: specific (promotion of WM projects in a determinate
language or of contents about a certain culture)
- Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive
- Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on
behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD)
- Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)
- Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body
- Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD)
- 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
- 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)
- Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural
sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly about geography.
<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.
=== Wikimedian associations ===
- Interest scope: variable, undetermined
- Territorial range: variable, mostly subnational, non exclusive
- Representation: non exclusive
- Registered (external): no
- 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
- Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage)
- Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet
have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility).
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal
negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Dear Galileo, (and SJ and Morgan)
Many thanks. It reads very well - and will certainly help clarify thinking around 'groups'. Have added a few comments inline. Bishakha
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Galileo Vidoni galio2k@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all:
I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during the past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've already discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the Frankfurt meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a little bit more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or are TBD. Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is especially sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response we get now we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. I put the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or suggestions before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion from the MR working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for discussion --I'd be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.
During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator, envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters, which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within that territory.
First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to be discussed.
On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it is for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want to establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them, how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for now.
A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for 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? 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.
If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it?
Is this something we really want - it implies a power hierarchy?
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.
To sum it up:
== Existing organizations ==
=== 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?
- Representation: global
- Registered (external): yes
- Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement
- Trademarks: own
- Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
=== Wikimedia chapters ===
- Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects)
- Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not
exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational entities)
- Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all
of WM projects)
- Registered (external): yes
- Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom
- Trademarks: agreement with WMF
- Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member
fees, donations
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==
=== 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'
- Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive
- Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on
behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD)
- Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)
If they are non-registered, do they become associations? 9ie the next category?)
- Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body
Later on, we will have to think of and specify a recognition process.
- Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD)
- 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?
- 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)
- Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural
sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly about geography.
<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.
=== 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?
* Representation: non exclusive
- Registered (external): no
- 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.
- Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage)
- Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet
have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility).
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal
negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements
Looks very good overall.
Best Bishakha
Dear Galio (and Bishakha and SJ and Morgan)
Thanks for drafting this out. I have also put some comments in line below, like Bishakha.
If you would like us to edit this together before putting it on meta, one option might be to put this on MR wiki. We are already creating a version of the charter there, ahead of putting it on meta. http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Also, Theo has put onto meta some good thoughts on groups that you might find interesting, too. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/groups
Look forward to talking Friday!
Cheers
Jon Jon Huggett +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com www.huggett.com Skype jon.huggett
On Feb 28, 2011, at 07:10 , Bishakha Datta wrote:
Dear Galileo, (and SJ and Morgan)
Many thanks. It reads very well - and will certainly help clarify thinking around 'groups'. Have added a few comments inline. Bishakha
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Galileo Vidoni galio2k@gmail.com wrote: Dear all:
I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during the past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've already discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the Frankfurt meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a little bit more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or are TBD. Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is especially sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response we get now we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. I put the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or suggestions before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion from the MR working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for discussion --I'd be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.
During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator, envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters, which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within that territory.
First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to be discussed.
On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it is for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want to establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them, how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for now.
A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for 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? 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.
If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it?
Is this something we really want - it implies a power hierarchy?
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?
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.
To sum it up:
== Existing organizations ==
=== 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?
Do we need to define territories as 'exclusive' or can we set rules of engagement when multiple Wikimedia groups work alongside each other?
- Representation: global
- Registered (external): yes
- Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement
- Trademarks: own
- Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
=== Wikimedia chapters ===
- Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects)
- Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational entities)
- Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all of WM projects)
- Registered (external): yes
- Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom
- Trademarks: agreement with WMF
- Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member fees, donations
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==
=== 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'
- Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive
- Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD)
- Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)
If they are non-registered, do they become associations? 9ie the next category?)
- Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body
Later on, we will have to think of and specify a recognition process.
- Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD)
- 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?
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)
Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly about geography.
<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.
=== 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?
- Representation: non exclusive
- Registered (external): no
- 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.
- Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage)
- Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility).
- Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements
Looks very good overall.
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Jon Huggett jon.huggett@gmail.com wrote:
If you would like us to edit this together before putting it on meta, one option might be to put this on MR wiki. We are already creating a version of the charter there, ahead of putting it on meta. http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Dear Jon,
Is there a deadline to contribute to this on the MR wiki - before it goes on meta?
Bishakha
Dear Bishakha
In Frankfurt we said that we wanted to put the "table of contents/charter text" onto meta on March 10. IIRC, the rationale for this date was that it is two weeks before we meet in Berlin – to allow enough time for review, comment, correction, revision, percolation, etc.
Cheers
Jon Jon Huggett +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com www.huggett.com Skype jon.huggett
On Mar 1, 2011, at 06:43 , Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Jon Huggett jon.huggett@gmail.com wrote:
If you would like us to edit this together before putting it on meta, one option might be to put this on MR wiki. We are already creating a version of the charter there, ahead of putting it on meta. http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Dear Jon,
Is there a deadline to contribute to this on the MR wiki - before it goes on meta?
Bishakha
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jon Huggett jon.huggett@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Bishakha
In Frankfurt we said that we wanted to put the "table of contents/charter text" onto meta on March 10. IIRC, the rationale for this date was that it is two weeks before we meet in Berlin – to allow enough time for review, comment, correction, revision, percolation, etc.
Cheers
Jon
*Jon Huggett* +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com *www.huggett.com* Skype jon.huggett
On Mar 1, 2011, at 06:43 , Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Jon Huggett jon.huggett@gmail.com wrote:
If you would like us to edit this together before putting it on meta, one option might be to put this on MR wiki. We are already creating a version of the charter there, ahead of putting it on meta. http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Dear Jon,
Is there a deadline to contribute to this on the MR wiki - before it goes on meta?
Bishakha
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi
I added some replies to the working draft of the charter [1]. A couple of things-
1. I would suggest adding some clause about "dispute resolution" to the charter, who would have the final say on legal matters. Should there be a procedure or a contact at the foundation who would have final say in the matter?
2. After my conversation with lodewijk I've had a different outlook on the legal implications of permission given to other entities. We should consider the trademark and other Intellectual property as foundation's domain for legal purposes with some accommodation for a non-legal, non-monetary association with the projects.
3. I suggest adding the term "Authorized" to the definitions to entities that can raise money and use Intellectual property on behalf of the foundation.
I hope others weigh in on some of these, I've only had one look at the charter but I plan on adding and clarifying some parts to it. I would like to bring it up on the list before it's finalized.
Thanks
Theo
[1] http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charter&curid=86&am...http://goog_1081399683/ http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charter&curid=86&am...http://goog_1081399683/ http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charter&curid=86&am...
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
2011/3/2 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
A few comments: <snip> lots of interesting points </snip>
<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).
I am not sure if this is what you are suggesting, but to be totally clear: I do not think that we should as a movement accept donations to be "not spent on/in XXX" or accept that we have organizations in our movement that are on bad terms together. To accept an organization just for non-kurdish Iraq is going in a very very dangerous direction because it gives off a signal that we treat it as a seperate country - which is a political standpoint I would not like Wikimedia to take. That is independent of my personal opinion on the matter, which is irrelevant here, but rather a general idea that Wikimedia should be neutral on such political issues. The same goes for an "ethnic Serbians chapter" etc - I would personally also not accept that as a non-chapter association. But lets have this discussion on a real public forum and let others participate!
So basically I think we should be moving forward - we have this draft now, and I might not agree on every detail but it is most important that we get it out there.
Best,
Lodewijk
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
2011/3/2 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
A few comments: <snip> lots of interesting points </snip>
<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).
I am not sure if this is what you are suggesting, but to be totally clear: I do not think that we should as a movement accept donations to be "not spent on/in XXX" or accept that we have organizations in our movement that are on bad terms together. To accept an organization just for non-kurdish Iraq is going in a very very dangerous direction because it gives off a signal that we treat it as a seperate country - which is a political standpoint I would not like Wikimedia to take. That is independent of my personal opinion on the matter, which is irrelevant here, but rather a general idea that Wikimedia should be neutral on such political issues. The same goes for an "ethnic Serbians chapter" etc - I would personally also not accept that as a non-chapter association. But lets have this discussion on a real public forum and let others participate!
So basically I think we should be moving forward - we have this draft now, and I might not agree on every detail but it is most important that we get it out there.
Best,
Lodewijk
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
I believe we are conflating two separate issues here. The example of WM iraq and a Kurdish entity doesn't take into account the geo-political situation surrounding ethnic groups in Iraq, a similar situation might exist in Ethnic Serbian or even Catalan entity to a variable degree. Either way, supporting one over the other would be making a stance that I agree no one in the group would be willing to take.
So, the question becomes about fundraising, how one sub-national organization can share funding from a national one. The solution suggested earlier is giving an option for sub-national entities to opt-in to the national fundraiser. Although this might seem like a simple solution, it would bring a lot of issues associated with it. Chapters and national entities would not like to receive funding with strings attached to it, the sub-national entities might not have a good relation with the chapter and would be placed directly under them in this hierarchy. There are a lot of geo-political, social, legal issues with the sub-national entities. An alternative solution would be using the foundation to bridge this gap as an outside, completely unaffiliated entity for some of the sensitive issues.
Theo
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
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).
I am not sure if this is what you are suggesting, but to be totally clear: I do not think that we should as a movement accept donations to be "not spent on/in XXX" or accept that we have organizations in our movement that are on bad terms together. To accept an organization just for non-kurdish Iraq
Theo writes:
I believe we are conflating two separate issues here. The example of WM iraq and a Kurdish entity doesn't take into account the geo-political situation surrounding ethnic groups in Iraq, a similar situation might exist in Ethnic Serbian or even Catalan entity to a variable degree. Either way, supporting one over the other would be making a stance that I agree no one in the group would be willing to take.
<
Chapters and national entities would not like to receive funding with strings attached to it, the sub-national [or non-geographical --sj] entities might not have a good relation with the chapter and would be placed directly under them in this hierarchy.
<
An alternative solution would be using the foundation to bridge this gap as an outside, completely unaffiliated entity for some of the sensitive issues.
Theo captures my meaning. We may well have two organizations which, on paper, are non-discriminatory and even have signed mutual-collaboration agreements (for instance, if we require this of groups operating in the same area or on the same topic), but which in practice are at odds.
I do see the Foundation bridging this gap where it arises. Cultural partner organizations have the advantage that they can collaborate with and request grants from multiple chapters or groups, not only the Foundation -- but the disadvantage that they cannot participate directly in revenue-sharing fundraising. Of course they can also fundraise and build a network of suporters in the traditional way -- through personal outreach and the media.
SJ
movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org