I don't think we need to formalize these kinds of groups at all, unless they want the same kind of official support that chapters get. The core of Wikimedia is self-organizing, ad hoc groups, so what possible purpose would it serve to build additional rules and conventions around them if they're not asking for it already?
It's not that I think it's a definitively bad idea. I just don't think we should create more organizational overheard unless we really need to. At the moment, I don't see anyone asking for this kind of thing.
Steven
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Anders Wennersten < anders.wennersten@bonetmail.com> wrote:
I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
I would suggest we
- come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
"Associates of ..." or something like that. 2. start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in these cases..
Anders Wennersten treasurer Wikimedia Sverige Member of ChapCom
Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with. (What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time. However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into the chapters framework?
There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).
Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in? How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Internal-l mailing list Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l