Hi Jan,
It is not a problem of lack of time or lack of communication channels. It is a problem of lack of participation of chapters and fear of change.
These proposals have been in meta for months. [1] The answer to many of the questions raised here have been in meta for months. [2]
The problem is that it is very difficult to reform a cemetery if you need the participation of inmates and even more if when you're about to decide then all of them suddenly resurrect to oppose.
The movement roles group has worked and made his proposal. It has members that also are active in chapters who were well aware of chapter’s needs and sensitivity. I think that from the beginning the chapters have been afraid to change and believed that it was they who had the authority to decide or at least to block any decision. That’s why IMO they have not felt the need to participate and that’s why they now raise their voice with thousand arguments to block the decision.
In theory and to some extent I could agree with chapters that creating any new model is their death. (particularly the dead of dorment or inactive chapters) But in practice things are exactly the reverse. Wikimedia Spain [3] is the best evidence that having other organizations in the same territory is highly healthy for chapters. Although while these organizations are not formally recognized and there are no mechanisms for communication and coordination between them and the chapters there will be misunderstandings and inconveniences.
I think that many participants in this debate are not grasping what decision we are talking about. We are not proposing the creation of new organizations. We are not deciding whether there will be new organizations that compete with chapters or not. The creation of new models and new organizations is not in our hands. In many countries in the world there is freedom of association and those new models and organizations may perfectly appear. They don’t need our approval. What we are deciding here is whether we want to create channels of communication and cooperation with these new models and encourage them to appear or if we give them back and tries to discourage more people joining to promote free knowledge.
I think Florence and Lodewijk have understood. But while the proposal of Florence seems to me that leads us to give them back by creating two sides with the WMF and the new institutions in one and chapters in the other the proposal of Lodewijk leads to create mechanisms to ensure that we have good understanding.
I like more the proposal of Lodewijk. I also have given my view to the questions Achal so kindly had the patience to collect in meta. [4]
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_roles/summary/models&am...
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles/models#Partner_organizati...
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Espa%C3%...
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:41:49 +0100
From: Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID: 268BD4B0-7E6F-43FE-BCC6-03B486877091@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Ziko and Lodewijk,
Thank you for this feedback. I must say that I was not intimately involved in these recommendations, and my take was that this was something that came out of the MR workgroup, and we had actually waited too long to approve these recommendations.
It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of "organising" ourselves. I am also convinced that we need to increase the different kinds of organisation methods that we support.
But lets take the time to discuss the content of this proposal. If that means we need to take an extra month, so be it (would be my personal opinion) and make sure that we end up with something that is a marked improvement on the current situation. And we might have to refine it in the coming years (as we will have to do with most of the things we are trying to settle at this point :)
Thanks for your constructive feedback!
Jan-Bart
You have not understood the difference between a discussion in Meta and the transformation of this discussion in an "operational" implementation in the organization.
This proposal has a lot of "bugs", it seems like a discussion made in front of the coffee machine.
Formally your point of view is acceptable, but this solution cannot be implemented "as is" because your point of view remains hard to implement.
I would be an inmate instead of a participant in "Pindaric flights".
Ilario
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Joan Goma jrgoma@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jan,
It is not a problem of lack of time or lack of communication channels. It is a problem of lack of participation of chapters and fear of change.
These proposals have been in meta for months. [1] The answer to many of the questions raised here have been in meta for months. [2]
The problem is that it is very difficult to reform a cemetery if you need the participation of inmates and even more if when you're about to decide then all of them suddenly resurrect to oppose.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org