Do we really need so much stuff for these groups? I agree with a basic charter for each
group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular reporting) seems bureaucratic and
pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to control but rather to nurture an organic
community. Also, we should let these groups name themselves.
________________________________
From: Anders Wennersten <anders.wennersten(a)bonetmail.com>
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 12:03:53 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]
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
1. 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
Internal-l mailing list
Internal-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l