On 9/3/07, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would
there be a legal risk
if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently
1) full spin off
2) a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with
shared values with WMF
3) working with chapters
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to
all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular),
though I believe they are part of the story.
The big issue with using chapters is, as you say, partial coverage. But the solution to
that is to
create more chapters. :) Once several chapters start to accredit people, then the
processes
developed can be copied much more easily (esp to and from nations with similar legal
frameworks in
this area).
Rahhhhhhhhh.
No, no, no and no again, I have said this about a million times
already. The big issue with using chapters is exactly the same as the
big issue with the Foundation. It's dangerous for exactly the same
reasons.
If chapters start to provide *official accreditation* [1] not only do
they, in a number of countries, violate the law concerning
journalistic accreditation, but they also endanger the safety of
Wikimedia Projects in regard to their local laws altogether (same
stuff, liability etc.).
So, can we please forget about this?
Delphine
[1] and for those who might want to object, no, what Wikimedia France
does is *not exactly* provide *official accreditation* but rather use
its influence to allow individuals to get into the press room. Not to
say that this practice might one day lead to a problem with
journalists anyway.
--
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in
*Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.