The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community: ----
The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process.
We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March.
Thanks, Ting.
Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations
== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==
In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement:
*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement.
*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia.
== Recognizing new affiliation models ==
In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover:
* recognizing all group models * mentoring chapters and partner organiations * reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups
The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.
This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.
;References: * [[wmf:Audit charter]] * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope]] * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure]]
Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's".
Le 13/02/2012 08:09, Ting Chen a écrit :
The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community:
The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process.
We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March.
Thanks, Ting.
Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations
== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==
In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement:
*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement.
*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia.
== Recognizing new affiliation models ==
In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover:
- recognizing all group models
- mentoring chapters and partner organiations
- reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups
The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.
This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.
;References:
- [[wmf:Audit charter]]
- [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope]]
- [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure]]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour mathias.damour@laposte.net wrote:
Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia marks ?
Because they might feel a need to identify themselves as part of Wikimedia. Yes, there is much talk about use of Wikimedia trademarks here, but I think that that is because it is the major, if not only, legal consequence of association or affiliance. If an organization has no need for Wikimedia marks, the necessity of it being an associate or affiliate would be much less.
Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
What makes you think they do?
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's".
Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept redondant with partner organizations.
But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to better see what the difference is ?
For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
And if there is a chapter-to-be somewhere, already a legal entity but not yet approved by a chapter, would that be a partner or an affiliate ?
One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters.
But well
Florence
Le 13/02/2012 08:09, Ting Chen a écrit :
The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community:
The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process.
We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March.
Thanks, Ting.
Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations
== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==
In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement:
*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement.
*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia.
== Recognizing new affiliation models ==
In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover:
- recognizing all group models
- mentoring chapters and partner organiations
- reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups
The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.
This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.
;References:
- [[wmf:Audit charter]]
- [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope]]
- [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure]]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.comwrote:
One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that
- partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation
- whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter
has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How would this benefit the movement?
Best Bishakha
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard <anthere9@yahoo.com
wrote:
One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that
- partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation
- whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter
has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF
only.
In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner
will
be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How would this benefit the movement?
While I can't speak of direct harm or benefit for the movement, I would put some distinction between the recognition process. Chapters have a board and are open to membership, how partner organizations deal with this issue and their bylaws is still left open. Before we jump head-first into this, proper consideration has to be given about the liability and the vetting procedure for this. As it stands, the approval process seems identical between chapters and partners organizations, this is not a good thing. It might be advisable to give more time to the legal dept. and ChapCom to fully vet the paperwork as it currently does for chapters, since chapters also carry a higher liability and exposure for the movement, while partner organizations are relatively independent, whatever their underlying criteria might be. Partner organization status, if without a formal registration, can be approved directly by WMF.
It can save a lot of time and effort, and limit a lot of exposure for the existing chapters, not to mention make the overall process of approving partner organizations, a simpler one. Chapters have to assimilate into an existing community of established chapters, their approval can only enforce and support the new entity. We also have to decide if we want all these future organizations bunched up together, or if they will have a tiered approach to their relationship.
There's probably a better reason, but this was the one that came to me.
Regards Theo
On 2/13/12 12:51 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouardanthere9@yahoo.comwrote:
One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that
- partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation
- whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter
has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How would this benefit the movement?
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set of "partners" (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money, technical support).
These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or WMF.
It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ?
In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense.
In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity.
On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :) But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that all chapters be there. This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations, can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision making of who is part and who is not part of the network.
One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity.
I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main points to implement 1) a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters representants (some tweaks) 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do) 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be improved over time)
Hope that unwrap the head :)
Flo
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set of "partners" (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money, technical support).
These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or WMF.
It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ?
In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense.
In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity.
On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :) But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that all chapters be there. This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations, can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision making of who is part and who is not part of the network.
One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity.
I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main points to implement
- a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters
representants (some tweaks) 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do) 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be improved over time)
Hope that unwrap the head :)
The sense of belonging and solidarity is undermined by the position that Wikimedia organization requires country behind itself. Not all of us share position that two Wikimedian groups can cooperate just if both are symbolically linked to the state structure. That's ideologically biased and, unfortunately, not biased by our common ideology, free access to knowledge.
While associations and affiliates don't sound as in-movement organizations, partner organizations and chapters sound like it.
On 2/13/12 3:56 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouardanthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set of "partners" (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money, technical support).
These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or WMF.
It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ?
In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense.
In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity.
On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :) But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that all chapters be there. This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations, can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision making of who is part and who is not part of the network.
One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity.
I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main points to implement
- a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters
representants (some tweaks) 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do) 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be improved over time)
Hope that unwrap the head :)
The sense of belonging and solidarity is undermined by the position that Wikimedia organization requires country behind itself. Not all of us share position that two Wikimedian groups can cooperate just if both are symbolically linked to the state structure. That's ideologically biased and, unfortunately, not biased by our common ideology, free access to knowledge.
While associations and affiliates don't sound as in-movement organizations, partner organizations and chapters sound like it.
Quite possibly.
Well, I am not sure if I remember well the arguments exactly (those who do, please help)
* we supported chapter creation covering a geographical area rather than not mostly because a legal entity ought to be linked to a nation legal system. "Nation" being in the larger sense. It really ought to be either a state (as in USA), or a country (such as France) or a larger but legal entity (such Europe)
* I think we suggested that we should not have more than one legal entity over the same territory essentially because of 1) the fight it could create in terms of fundraising and 2) the confusion it would create in "outsiders" (journalists, politicans, etc.) about who should be contacted for what
Well... with regards to fundraising, the fight is already there and it is likely that most chapters will no more be allowed through wikimedia projects websites. They could still fundraise through social media, their websites and so on. If donors can stand the confusion between giving to a chapter or to WMF, then they can probably stand the confusion between giving to a chapter and to a partner organization. So, this ground for disagreement is likely to decrease anyway.
The other argument was about the "contact". For those of you who were already around in 2004-2005, one of the big problems we had is that journalists were lost in our "hierarchy" (or absence thereof). Who should they be contacted ? Who had authority to speak in the name of ? Who could make a decision on behalf of ? I take it that in some country, journalists now have understood that.... they would have to live with the uncertainty. But that question stands. When a journalist wonders who he should contact, where will he turn ? When a teacher wonders which organization he should contact, where will he turn ? When a museum director wants to propose a partnership, who should he go to ?
I take it that if chapters and organizations do have good relationships and share members, this issue will solve by itself. But if there are conflicts or at least a competition, the situation is bound to get to a total mess.
I totally understand the interest of partners in that context. But if the roles, responsibilities and duties of chapters versus partners are not clarified, we might be heading to a serious mess ;)
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 17:48, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, I am not sure if I remember well the arguments exactly (those who do, please help)
- we supported chapter creation covering a geographical area rather than not
mostly because a legal entity ought to be linked to a nation legal system. "Nation" being in the larger sense. It really ought to be either a state (as in USA), or a country (such as France) or a larger but legal entity (such Europe)
- I think we suggested that we should not have more than one legal entity
over the same territory essentially because of 1) the fight it could create in terms of fundraising and 2) the confusion it would create in "outsiders" (journalists, politicans, etc.) about who should be contacted for what
Well... with regards to fundraising, the fight is already there and it is likely that most chapters will no more be allowed through wikimedia projects websites. They could still fundraise through social media, their websites and so on. If donors can stand the confusion between giving to a chapter or to WMF, then they can probably stand the confusion between giving to a chapter and to a partner organization. So, this ground for disagreement is likely to decrease anyway.
The other argument was about the "contact". For those of you who were already around in 2004-2005, one of the big problems we had is that journalists were lost in our "hierarchy" (or absence thereof). Who should they be contacted ? Who had authority to speak in the name of ? Who could make a decision on behalf of ? I take it that in some country, journalists now have understood that.... they would have to live with the uncertainty. But that question stands. When a journalist wonders who he should contact, where will he turn ? When a teacher wonders which organization he should contact, where will he turn ? When a museum director wants to propose a partnership, who should he go to ?
I take it that if chapters and organizations do have good relationships and share members, this issue will solve by itself. But if there are conflicts or at least a competition, the situation is bound to get to a total mess.
I totally understand the interest of partners in that context. But if the roles, responsibilities and duties of chapters versus partners are not clarified, we might be heading to a serious mess ;)
I expect to see all organizations on the same territory to cooperate with each other from the beginning.
I am also sure that organizations which operate on the same territory will be distinctive enough to be easily recognized. I don't expect that ChapCom and Board would be insane enough to recognize "Wikimedians in France" as partner organization, besides Wikimedia France. And possible "Esperantist Wikimedians" based in France would be distinct enough from Wikimedia France.
I'm happy to see the Partner Organization possibility being given serious consideration. I'm a longtime believer that organizations with "Wikimedia values" need to band together into some larger umbrella organizational structure. I hope this new framework will allow us to return to a more 'innovative' phase in our growth.
Wikipedia is the beginning of our revolution, not the end.
Hi, everyone!
Alec, I share your enthusiasm about wikimedia revolution, and I also have been nagging my chapter with the idea of the shared wikivalues. I ask everyone to take this in mind as a lighthouse in the gales. Governance is not an easy way, and for sure we're going to make some big mistakes in our way. It doesn't mather, the goal is so beautiful to fight for, that it deserves some frustating moments. :)
Well, it's only my humble opinion, but I think that we all have deployed too soon the seminal idea of anthere, I mean, a wikicouncil. I think that this idea will overcome some inconvenients between different ways of engagging with Wikimedia movement and legitimacy.
Some reasons alleged in meta are the increase in bureaucracy and therefore a slowing in decission making. But let me say that this idea has some advantages that overcome those minor problems:
* Well, some decissions have to be slow and reflexive by their own (i.e long term strategics, movement structure). Those are the kind of decissions to be taken by the wikicouncil. *Wikicouncil is the only way of representation which is full legitimate and representative of a movement who has multiple ways of participation. *Wikicouncil will be a forum to put together the different ways of advocacy. *Wikicouncil shall not increase budget as it can take place simultaneously with Wikimania.
I think that the roles of the multiple entities must be very clearified in order to avoid outreach confussions, and coordination must be mandatory to get WMF approvals. Under the proper coordination of agendas and messages, I think that there is nothing to worry, and even joint apparition of chapters and other movement forms will be reinforcing in terms of outreach activities.
2012/2/14 Alec Meta alecmeta@gmail.com
I'm happy to see the Partner Organization possibility being given serious consideration. I'm a longtime believer that organizations with "Wikimedia values" need to band together into some larger umbrella organizational structure. I hope this new framework will allow us to return to a more 'innovative' phase in our growth.
Wikipedia is the beginning of our revolution, not the end.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
As Andre says, Affiliates need permission to use the WMF marks on their own sites / banners, or to run cross-promotions for shared projects. (We might want to get reciprocal approval to use their marks in the same way)
No-one needs trademarks to get grants, but a recognition process can be tied with a basic assessment that a group is working effectively. If done effectively, this would be a useful flag when applying for grants from the WMF, chapters, or external groups.
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's".
I don't see this happening, any more than chapters might today be downgraded (or threatened) to "not chapters" by not having a chapter agreement renewed.
Chapters as a diverse group are better at defining "Wikimedia mission alignment" than the Foundation -- the best recommendation I have seen so far for measuring mission alignment would involve a chapters council. (IMO this would be improved upon by a process involving project contributors as well)
But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to better see what the difference is ?
For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
Likely an affiliate. The might become a partner if they were to request adoption by WMF, but they are not currently representing Wikimedia as a movement within the universe of maps.
Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
Likely a partner, as their focus is representing Wikimedia within catalan culture and community.
And if there is a chapter-to-be somewhere, already a legal entity but not yet approved by a chapter, would that be a partner or an affiliate ?
Neither, it would likely be an Association. (It would not qualify as a partner if it was focused on a geography, it would not qualify as an affiliate if it did no work other than wikimedia projects)
As Thomas Dalton notes, Chapters are crisply defined, without overlap, and closely tied to existing legal, political, social and financial structure in the world (which tend to follow national boundaries). This makes them an excellent long-term network for supporting efforts throughout the world.
Partners would be more variably defined, though each be linked to their own circles of knowledge or culture.
Millosh writes:
Not all of us share position that two Wikimedian groups can cooperate just if both are symbolically linked to the state structure. That's ideologically biased and, unfortunately, not biased by our common ideology, free access to knowledge.
While associations and affiliates don't sound as in-movement organizations, partner organizations and chapters sound like it.
Yes, this was the original idea: Partners and chapters would both be in-movement organizations, not identical but both shaping our identity and representing Wikimedia to the world.
SJ
[ Many of these questions and answers are being consolidated on the Meta talk page. ]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mathias Damour mathias.damour@laposte.netwrote:
I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's".
I see new 'models' as a positive proposal to encourage and enable many
more types of affiliations to take place - formal, informal, geographic, not defined by geography, thematic etc - rather than as a 'stick' to put down or threaten chapters.
That's why I'm in favour of this. Personal view.
Best Bishakha
Thank you for sharing this, Ting. I think this is an excellent set of proposals with which to start a more structured discussion than we've currently had on this topic.
I fail to see the attack on chapters that other people are talking about. There is a distinct difference between Chapters and Partner Organisations in that Chapters are non-overlapping (with each other - they will overlap with Partner Organisations). This makes them unique among Wikimedia organisations in that there will usually be a specific Chapter that is unambiguously responsible for a given activity, while there often won't be a single Partner Organisation that have undisputed "jurisdiction" (for want of a better word) over it. I don't see anything in this proposal to suggest that this unique nature of chapters will be degraded.
There has been considerable discussion about whether non-chapter groups will be able to participate in things like the Chapter-selected WMF board seat selection process. There is nothing in the proposal regarding that, so I would be interested in hearing the thoughts from the board regarding that question.
I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. "One Chapter - One Vote" is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others represent small geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like "History" be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very specific topic like "Submarines"?). It might make sense to let them participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't going to work.
On 13 February 2012 07:09, Ting Chen tchen@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community:
The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process.
We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March.
Thanks, Ting.
Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations
== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==
In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement:
*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement.
*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia.
== Recognizing new affiliation models ==
In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover:
- recognizing all group models
- mentoring chapters and partner organiations
- reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups
The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.
This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.
;References:
- [[wmf:Audit charter]]
- [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope]]
- [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure]]
-- Ting Chen Member of the Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. E-Mail: tchen@wikimedia.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. "One Chapter - One Vote" is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others represent small geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like "History" be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very specific topic like "Submarines"?). It might make sense to let them participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't going to work.
The simplest solution is to remove the Chapters from their role in electing members of the Board. There will always be disparities between chapters - in funding, representation, organization, professionalism, activity, etc. The concept of Chapter elected Board seats will only become more fraught. Thomas' comment about the U.S. is a perfect harbinger of things to come - international balance of power concerns mixed with a smug insult predicated on ignorance.
There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San Francisco...
Marcos Tallés (aka Marctaltor) Secretario de Wikimedia España marcos@wikimedia.org.es tal_tor9@yahoo.es (34) 658 395 060 www.wikimedia.org.es
--- El lun, 13/2/12, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com escribió:
De: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: lunes, 13 de febrero, 2012 15:03
I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. "One Chapter - One Vote" is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others represent small geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like "History" be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very specific topic like "Submarines"?). It might make sense to let them participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't going to work.
The simplest solution is to remove the Chapters from their role in electing members of the Board. There will always be disparities between chapters - in funding, representation, organization, professionalism, activity, etc. The concept of Chapter elected Board seats will only become more fraught. Thomas' comment about the U.S. is a perfect harbinger of things to come - international balance of power concerns mixed with a smug insult predicated on ignorance. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hiya all,
It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions we have talked about how we should try to engage volunteers and let them do what they are best at - I still stand behind that. That however also means that we should recognize that the chapters model will not work for every single person or group of persons.
This does not necessarily have to correlate with a 'shift of power' or disengaging chapters - it *should* be about engaging more volunteers, and allowing them to do great work with the best tools available. So let us focus on that.
I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF: 1) Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day 2) Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow into a chapter
The group 1) will probably mainly be the case because of either legal reasons or because there is not enough critical mass yet. I don't think anyone disagrees we should give them the space they need. This includes for example Wikimedia Croatia, Kazachstan and Georgia.
The group 2) will in my expectation consist of groups that are indeed more aligned along cultural ideas. To mind come Amical (as discussed) and Esperantists. Now this is where things apparently become complicated, because somehow things can get conflicting when they start to compete with chapters. There are a few things relevant here in the recognition process by X-committee: * What will be the rights will determine to large extent how high the threshold will be * If there is a geographical component (explicit or not) there should, imho, be a consultation with the relevant other organizations overlapping with that component. I don't know if it is realistic to go as far as a veto, but it should definitely be a very serious part of the process. This should probably be reciprocal - if a chapter is to be recognized other groups in that area should be consulted, too. * We should have clear to what extent trademarks and fundraising rights go - both for chapters and non-chapter organizations. * We have to remain very careful about political statements. I am personally a bit hesistant with recognizing any organization which is politically oriented. Hence, this analysis should also be part of the recognition process of any movement organization. To give an entirely obvious example: I would not feel comfortable if any organization would be founded based on ethnically oriented principles, or would be discriminating in its membership based on principles that would be considered illegal in most countries (even if it is not illegal in that specific country). Another obvious example: I would feel extremely uncomfortable if any of these organizations would only allow men to vote in their assemblies or if there are religious requirements. * In general I would like to find a way to ensure that relations are good between the organization and the communities and relevant other organizations. I doubt we ever can formalize that into a demand, but all efforts should go into this of course.
Probably there are some more criteria which are currently already checked upon (although not formally in a checklist) by the recognition of chapters that should be part of this. I think it would be helpful if chapcom can tackle that issue in it's berlin meeting.
Anyway, just some thoughts. As a final remark, I sincerely hope that we will not fall in the trap of building policies around a single case - but rather focus on the big picture and then afterwards test that picture on the single scenario. Amical is a complicated case, and it would be very easy to loose ourselves in who's at fault, the details and what solutions do not work in their case.
Warmly, Lodewijk
No dia 13 de Fevereiro de 2012 15:29, marcos tal_tor9@yahoo.es escreveu:
There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San Francisco...
Marcos Tallés (aka Marctaltor) Secretario de Wikimedia España marcos@wikimedia.org.es tal_tor9@yahoo.es (34) 658 395 060 www.wikimedia.org.es
--- El lun, 13/2/12, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com escribió:
De: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" < foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Fecha: lunes, 13 de febrero, 2012 15:03
I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. "One Chapter - One Vote" is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others represent small geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like "History" be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very specific topic like "Submarines"?). It might make sense to let them participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't going to work.
The simplest solution is to remove the Chapters from their role in electing members of the Board. There will always be disparities between chapters - in funding, representation, organization, professionalism, activity, etc. The concept of Chapter elected Board seats will only become more fraught. Thomas' comment about the U.S. is a perfect harbinger of things to come - international balance of power concerns mixed with a smug insult predicated on ignorance. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:58, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions we have talked about how we should try to engage volunteers and let them do what they are best at - I still stand behind that. That however also means that we should recognize that the chapters model will not work for every single person or group of persons.
This does not necessarily have to correlate with a 'shift of power' or disengaging chapters - it *should* be about engaging more volunteers, and allowing them to do great work with the best tools available. So let us focus on that.
I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF:
- Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day
- Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow into a
chapter
The group 1) will probably mainly be the case because of either legal reasons or because there is not enough critical mass yet. I don't think anyone disagrees we should give them the space they need. This includes for example Wikimedia Croatia, Kazachstan and Georgia.
The group 2) will in my expectation consist of groups that are indeed more aligned along cultural ideas. To mind come Amical (as discussed) and Esperantists. Now this is where things apparently become complicated, because somehow things can get conflicting when they start to compete with chapters. There are a few things relevant here in the recognition process by X-committee:
- What will be the rights will determine to large extent how high the
threshold will be
- If there is a geographical component (explicit or not) there should,
imho, be a consultation with the relevant other organizations overlapping with that component. I don't know if it is realistic to go as far as a veto, but it should definitely be a very serious part of the process. This should probably be reciprocal - if a chapter is to be recognized other groups in that area should be consulted, too.
- We should have clear to what extent trademarks and fundraising rights go
- both for chapters and non-chapter organizations.
- We have to remain very careful about political statements. I am
personally a bit hesistant with recognizing any organization which is politically oriented. Hence, this analysis should also be part of the recognition process of any movement organization. To give an entirely obvious example: I would not feel comfortable if any organization would be founded based on ethnically oriented principles, or would be discriminating in its membership based on principles that would be considered illegal in most countries (even if it is not illegal in that specific country). Another obvious example: I would feel extremely uncomfortable if any of these organizations would only allow men to vote in their assemblies or if there are religious requirements.
- In general I would like to find a way to ensure that relations are good
between the organization and the communities and relevant other organizations. I doubt we ever can formalize that into a demand, but all efforts should go into this of course.
Probably there are some more criteria which are currently already checked upon (although not formally in a checklist) by the recognition of chapters that should be part of this. I think it would be helpful if chapcom can tackle that issue in it's berlin meeting.
Anyway, just some thoughts. As a final remark, I sincerely hope that we will not fall in the trap of building policies around a single case - but rather focus on the big picture and then afterwards test that picture on the single scenario. Amical is a complicated case, and it would be very easy to loose ourselves in who's at fault, the details and what solutions do not work in their case.
Yes.
Message du 13/02/12 15:59 De : "Lodewijk"
I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF:
- Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day
- Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow into a
chapter
I think that there is a 3) : Organizations that want to deal with the chapter of their country rather than with the WMF for contacts, advice and sometimes financial support for their actions.
Mathias Damour
Une messagerie gratuite, garantie à vie et des services en plus, ça vous tente ? Je crée ma boîte mail www.laposte.net
On 13 February 2012 14:29, marcos tal_tor9@yahoo.es wrote:
There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San Francisco...
This is effectively how fundraising now works.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org