Dear Bishakha,
I apologize for intruding in this discussion again as someone who has little knowledge about India and the local situation.
I'm myself not entirely convinced that there always should be one organization in one country - but it is out default. That means that if we want to drift off drom that default, there should be a good reason for it. That is a different mindset of course than that organizations have to prove itself.
There are a few things special here however. The first is that one of the organizations is a membership organization, and the other isn't. To me, with my limited knowledge and understanding, it would indeed seem logical given our background to put the membership organization at the center stage. However, at the same time I can understand that this organization might not be ready to handle the funds yet that it needs to. But again - the default would lie imho with the membership organization. If the Trust wants to deviate that is fine, but ideally that would always happen with the consent of the chapter.
And of course, now that there *are* two organizations, they should communicate well with each other. Somehow we should ensure that, and I hope some good routes are being found to let everyone on the chapter believe that they are being communicated well with to the full extent. Like was noted somewhere else in this thread, if there is a paid organization just doing stuff you'd like to do as a volunteer as well - that can be pretty darn demotivating. And possibly harmful for the volunteer community in the long run. Lets just be careful.
Another is the confusing name - both organizations have the words "Wikimedia India" in their name. Since chapters are usually identified with Wikimedia Country, this trust is already to me confusing, since it implies it is set up *by* the chapter. Choosing a different name might resolve some issues here.
I'm not trying to say here whether those conversations and consent happened - at the beginning of the discussion I was merely trying to understand the situation better, to get a better grasp of who talked with who, who were involved in decision making processes here. From chapters we expect no less than transparent founding processes on meta, involving the community. Receiving feedback and even opening up the bylaws for discussion. I have not seen such a process, but may have missed it. If we are to place the trust at the center stage (are we? still unclear to me, so not suggesting anything here) we should *at least* require the same standards as we do for new chapters.
At least for me this is the major part of why I started off this discussion in the first place. It is no attack, it has mainly been a set of questions which have gotten answered in many different ways throughout this discussion. That alone leaves me to believe that there are ways to improve.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 16 de Novembro de 2011 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta@gmail.com
escreveu:
Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want to take this conversation forward.
One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness within the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens - these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated almost as sacrilege.
One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some sort of trespasser or gate-crasher).
A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only workable model?)
For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not mistaken.
India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories, atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities, not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge to people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a second entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources do not seem to be scarce.
Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email: "...this new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the potential to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage anymore."
I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity, should feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too - via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then, will it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't think anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that would be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what this problem actually is.
Best Bishakha
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l