[Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question] - Wikimedia-l

Steven Walling

6 Jul 6 Jul

3:18 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]

I don't think we need to formalize these kinds of groups at all, unless they want the same kind of official support that chapters get. The core of Wikimedia is self-organizing, ad hoc groups, so what possible purpose would it serve to build additional rules and conventions around them if they're not asking for it already? It's not that I think it's a definitively bad idea. I just don't think we should create more organizational overheard unless we really need to. At the moment, I don't see anyone asking for this kind of thing. Steven On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Anders Wennersten < anders.wennersten(a)bonetmail.com> wrote:

...

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

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

4:20 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]

Hoi, A typical scenario would be like this. An organisation does something that is of interest to the WMF. The WMF and the organisation decide to cooperate on this. Depending on what the project is, the WMF may decide to be actively involve or sponsor the activity. The sponsorship is either monetary or in lending the name, writing a letter of support. When an organisation has a track record of positive cooperation with the WMF or its chapters, it is considered a "partner organisation". When an organisation is a partner, it gets certain privileges. This is laid down in a "memorandum of understanding" and it has a termination clause for when things go sour. Now this is not a bureaucratic scenario and it is a scenario where the relation is a relation of equals. When an organisation is not a chapter, it can benefit from a recognised relation with the WMF. This is a reciprocal benefit because it is good for the WMF to have strong relations with what I would consider partners like the FSF and Creative Commons to name but two. Thanks, Gerard 2009/7/6 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>

...

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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

5:04 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]

Hoi, Your focus is too narrow and consequently many organisations that could be and would be partners are excluded. Take for instance the Tropenmuseum, or the Bundesarchiv, they provide us with essential material and it makes sense to recognise this and allow them the use of our logo in the context of their partnership. Such a partnership has implications for the WMF and its projects; the minimial requirement for them is recognition of their contribution. Thanks, GerardM 2009/7/6 Anders Wennersten <anders.wennersten(a)bonetmail.com>

...

The Foundation and Mike G, quite rightly I believe, are now working on securing the value of the name, trademark and Logo use. According to this focus they want to regulate all uses of the trademark and name association in order it will not be misused. And to really secure it it needs phrasings like below, in order for the Foundation to quickly be bale to withdraw any recognition is any foul business occur.So while I totally agree on the culture of WMF I also believe the name and trademark is so important nowadays we can not put these in jeopardy by too loosely regulated partners MikeS already mention good examples, I can add some more we in ChapCom are unsure of how to handle. -A request from the Catalnn society wanting to promote an association covering several national countries (Spain, France, Italy). They are now in a lengthy process asking the approval of existing chapters, and the question is if it not would eb easier for them to be recognized on another base then geographic boundary/Chapter status -A request from Macedonia. They are in general fulfilling the demands on a chapter but some of us in ChapCom are concerned of their small membercommunity (9-15) (and user community on mk:wp). It would be much easier for all concerned if they could be given recognition and right to use the trademark without being defined as a chapter (being more controlled the first year or so, to see if they become a full viable community) Anders Text from agreement which I find more or less appropriate (perhaps not, though the US law controlling it) **4.1.Conduct.* xxxx shall not engage in social or political activism which might distract from the promotion of free content and knowledge, any illegal activity, or any activity which might negatively affect the work or image of Foundation. Chapter may promote free culture, free and open-source software, and free knowledge at any time; such activity is understood to be consistent with this clause and with the mission of the Wikimedia Movement. **4.2.No Authority to Act for Foundation.* xxxx shall not hold itself out as an agent or representative or division of, permit its employees, directors, officers, agents, and representatives to speak or act on behalf of or purport to speak or act on behalf of Foundation, including but not limited to making statements that purport to be official positions of Foundation. **4.3.Non-Profit Status.* xxxxr at all times shall remain in good standing as a non-profit entity in the jurisdiction of its incorporation and otherwise in accordance with the laws of the Region. xxxxr shall advise Foundation within thirty (30) days if its status as a nonprofit entity changes. **4.4.Compliance with Law.* xxxxx shall comply with all applicable law in its activities under this Agreement. xxxxx shall make all filings and maintain, at its own expense, all permits, licenses, and other governmental approvals that may be required in the Region in connection with its performance of this Agreement Geoffrey Plourde skrev:

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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply