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
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Michael Snowwikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
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).
I would to stress that the real problem for any organization of volunteers is the *continuity*.
I think that a aggregation of volunteers not included in a framework (like that of chapters) can be workable *only* with a well defined and time limited aims. When these aims are reached, the group is released. This is the example of Wikimania's groups (technically these groups can be called "task force").
The real problem is the status of volunteers because any person cannot assure a big and continuous presence for a lot of time.
The chapters can face the problem with an organization which are becoming more and more reliable because these chapters are looking for a system to assure the continuity also if this goal it's complicated to reach. In any case they are in a good way, but I can't imagine how another system of communities can solve this problem quickly.
Surely the chapters have a statute, a board and a light organization, but if they change the big percentage of the board every year they should face every time an organizational problem. In any case they have the tools to assure the continuity.
IMHO another "framework" can only introduce real problems for continuity, for communication and surely could put the WMF always in the situation to "re-organize" the organization to make order in an *entropic* system (more simple to say "work of Tantalus"). I can only imagine that for any problem we should not only discuss the competencies, but also the point of contact because in a volunteers organization it could change a lot.
After this introduction I see that it could be good to "re-use" the chapters organization for other types of project and probably to *extend* the concept of chapters with *different levels* of status. In few words... reuse the framework of chapters extending the types of chapters (it could be good also for some kind of newborn chapters of for WIP chapters like Macedonian WM).
It is not new that personally I have always asked to involve the chapters in some other projects like Wikimania (please look the word *involve*) to assure a trusted organization for this kind a projects. In any case WMF always asks for help to the chapters in this project for big involvement of people or for scholarships, I don't know why this involvement cannot be officially done at start.
In my opinion the role of chapters cannot be limited only to collect money and to take care for local communication. It's a poor adaptation considering the effort that they should do to find "the continuity".
Ilario
It seems to me that several kind of groups are talked about in this same discussion: * Informal groups, grass root movements, like the Brazilians * Non-geographical groups like the Blind, but also Latin or Yiddish Wikipedians * Partners outside the Wikimedia movement, like Bundesarchiv
For the first one, it is difficult to figure something out because a certain stability is the basis for a more organized kind of cooperation with the Foundation. For the second one, I would like to see the possibility to "join" the Foundation in a similar way the chapters do. Collecting money and using logos is the key problem for those groups nowadays. The problem would be to limit the number of possible organizations. For example, would we find an organization of German speaking Wikipedians suitable, next to the three chapters in the main German speaking countries? The third kind is a very different one, and due to the various ways of cooperation the cooperation treaties with them would be very customized.
Kind regards Ziko
2009/7/6 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree that this is a discussion worth having. Chapters fulfil one very specific purpose (furthering the goals of the movement within a certain geographical area), there are all kinds of other useful things to do which need appropriate tools.
Several people have talked about informal groups signing things (contracts similar to the chapters agreement, MoU's, etc.). For a group without any legal structure, this isn't really possible. The group can't sign anything, just the individuals. For a group set up for one short term project, this isn't too bad (although it isn't great), but for a long term thing like the Brazilian non-chapter it isn't an option because the membership is going to be constantly changing. In the UK there is a concept of an unincorporated association where the association (which can have full charitable status) isn't a legal entity in its own right and any agreements it makes are actually made with the Board of Trustees as a group of individuals but there is some kind of legislation that ensures continuity - when the membership of the board changes, the parties to the agreements somehow change (I didn't investigate this in much detail because Wikimedia UK decided to go down the incorporated route). That kind of association would work absolutely fine as a chapter (the main disadvantage is that the board are personally liable for the chapter's debts, including court ordered fines and damages) and doesn't need a separate framework, but as I understand it there isn't any such option for Brazil (or, if there is, it is no better than the alternative).
There is nothing that I can see that would stop an Assoc. of Blind Wikipedians (or similar) from incorporating somewhere (wherever is most convenient or legally favourable) and could have local chapters of its own. It could then sign something similar to a chapters agreement, although with a different name ("affiliated organisation"?).
Groups that don't want (or can't have) any kind of legal structure can just sign ad-hoc agreements with the WMF as individuals for grants or trademarks or whatever for any specific project they may want to do.
Thomas Dalton, 06/07/2009 16:58:
In the UK there is a concept of an unincorporated association where the association (which can have full charitable status) isn't a legal entity in its own right and any agreements it makes are actually made with the Board of Trustees as a group of individuals but there is some kind of legislation that ensures continuity - when the membership of the board changes, the parties to the agreements somehow change (I didn't investigate this in much detail because Wikimedia UK decided to go down the incorporated route). That kind of association would work absolutely fine as a chapter (the main disadvantage is that the board are personally liable for the chapter's debts, including court ordered fines and damages)
Wikimedia Italia is an association more or less like that («associazione non riconosciuta» = without «personalità giuridica»). :-)
Nemo
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 21:54 -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
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.
Actually, that sounds like a good idea. I wonder if there's interest among people involved with accessibility (whether blind or not - for example I'd potentially be interested in helping).
More concretely, there has been (for a while) talk of a Wikibooks "chapter"... it obviously wouldn't be based on geography, but could promote Wikibooks and Wikibooks-related issues, and develop programs and software for that project. Many of the sister projects may feel a similar need - other than Commons, I don't know of any major projects to promote growth or reach for the non-Wikipedia projects. Disappointingly, the usability initiative is explicitly about improving usability on Wikipedia, and not other projects. While there may be concomittant improvements, there's nothing specific for us, while everything is specific for Wikipedia. Luckily that will be addressed for Commons with this latest grant.
However, beyond technical issues, there is a lot the Wikibooks community could do in terms of promotion and outreach that isn't being done by the community or the Foundation currently. There's only so much volunteers can do from the bottom up without some organization and support, and the Foundation can only do so much from the top down. An organized chapter-like body would fill a gap between the two that could potentially have an enormous impact on the project since it smaller.
Thanks, -Mike
Hoi, When it comes to special interests, there are two existing groups you can add to the list.. There is a group who wants to enable MediaWiki for African languages. There is a group who are working on an extension in order to enable sign languages using the SignWriting script.
For the African languages we can have support for finding out what issues exist to enable African languages. We need a developer for that, we need WMF support for that.
For sign languages work is under way to write this software. It will need support from developers to assess the code and possibly sanitise the code. This will need WMF support. There are two requests for Wikipedias for sign languages.. The language committee finds that the primary missing part to the request is MediaWiki functionality. Thanks. GerardM
2009/7/6 Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 21:54 -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
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.
Actually, that sounds like a good idea. I wonder if there's interest among people involved with accessibility (whether blind or not - for example I'd potentially be interested in helping).
More concretely, there has been (for a while) talk of a Wikibooks "chapter"... it obviously wouldn't be based on geography, but could promote Wikibooks and Wikibooks-related issues, and develop programs and software for that project. Many of the sister projects may feel a similar need - other than Commons, I don't know of any major projects to promote growth or reach for the non-Wikipedia projects. Disappointingly, the usability initiative is explicitly about improving usability on Wikipedia, and not other projects. While there may be concomittant improvements, there's nothing specific for us, while everything is specific for Wikipedia. Luckily that will be addressed for Commons with this latest grant.
However, beyond technical issues, there is a lot the Wikibooks community could do in terms of promotion and outreach that isn't being done by the community or the Foundation currently. There's only so much volunteers can do from the bottom up without some organization and support, and the Foundation can only do so much from the top down. An organized chapter-like body would fill a gap between the two that could potentially have an enormous impact on the project since it smaller.
Thanks, -Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Michael, thanks for starting this thread.
I'll try to synthesize below some information about the development of the Brazilian "chapter". I hope the list will find it useful.
A group of volunteers spent more than one year discussing, writing, translating and approving the bylaws to create a legal entity for a future chapter in Brazil (we were blindly following the guidelines).
By the end of the process we realized that the requested bureaucracy did and would not really help us much in order to promote the Wikimedia projects in Brazil. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
We shared our concerns and ideas with the other chapters during the Chapters Meeting in Berlin. Since than, we've been trying to "wiki" the guidelines for the creation of new chapters.
We see ourselves with the same mission of any other Wikimedia chapter, but we don't need any legal entity. The structure below would much better fit our needs, considering the Brazilian context and culture.
(extracted from the Chapters Meeting presentation)
*We are **a movement of autonomous volunteers: *
- *Instead of a legal entity, an open movement* - *Instead of bylaws, a statement of principles* - *Instead of legal representatives, task assigned peers* - *Instead of internal finances, grants can go through partners*
*Actions come first to material resources!*
The "movement" called "wikibrasil" is finally growing organically, with less bureaucracy and more action. We are definitely a grassroots initiative, where any volunteer feels engaged and empowered to promote the Wikimedia projects. Should it be any different from that?
I hope this thread can help us understand that there is hardly ever a single formula that fits every single country. We could still be the cohesive global movement that started 8 years ago.
abraços, Thomas
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Thomas de Souza Buckupthomasdesouzabuckup@gmail.com wrote:
*We are **a movement of autonomous volunteers:
- *Instead of a legal entity, an open movement* - *Instead of bylaws, a statement of principles* - *Instead of legal representatives, task assigned peers* - *Instead of internal finances, grants can go through partners*
*Actions come first to material resources!*
Nothing against but there is an important point missed...
* Instead of a organization...
Someone has stated here that to sign a chapters agreement, for example, it's important to have a legal entity or, at least, an organization. I think that it could be different also to discuss with someone because without an organization it's impossible also to found a point of contact (for example there is no legal representatives).
IMHO the case of Brazil can be a *type* of chapter (for example a first step) and not a different type of organization (considering that there is no organization as I can see).
Ilario
Ilario,
you said:
without an organization it's impossible to found a point of contact (for example there is no legal representatives).
I understand your concern, but in reality, there are many ways to determine a point of contact "without an organization". For instance, "instead of legal representatives, (in Brazil we'd have) task assigned peers". They could be the point of contact too.
you also said:
IMHO the case of Brazil can be a *type* of chapter (for example a first step) and not a different type of organization.
I agree with you. In Brazil we have the same mission as any other chapter. Maybe it's a "first step" to become a chapter, but maybe it's a format for the long-term to do the same as the any other chapters (promote Wikimedia projects in a certain region). Shouldn't all types of chapters collaborate?
Thomas
2009/7/8 Thomas de Souza Buckup thomasdesouzabuckup@gmail.com:
Ilario,
you said:
without an organization it's impossible to found a point of contact (for example there is no legal representatives).
I understand your concern, but in reality, there are many ways to determine a point of contact "without an organization". For instance, "instead of legal representatives, (in Brazil we'd have) task assigned peers". They could be the point of contact too.
They can be a point of contact for their task, but not for the group as a whole. I think the Brazilian method will work quite well at doing individual initiatives, it's the higher level stuff you may not be able to do as much as regular chapters.
IMHO the case of Brazil can be a *type* of chapter (for example a first step) and not a different type of organization.
I agree with you. In Brazil we have the same mission as any other chapter. Maybe it's a "first step" to become a chapter, but maybe it's a format for the long-term to do the same as the any other chapters (promote Wikimedia projects in a certain region). Shouldn't all types of chapters collaborate?
The problem is, there is nothing to actually recognise as a chapter. There is nobody to sign a chapters agreement (you would have to have every member sign it and then amend it whenever someone joined or left). There is nothing to stop you doing most of the same things that chapters do, but I can't see how you can actually be a chapter.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 06:54, Michael Snowwikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
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?
As an answer to this question, I would say yes. My nuances come later.
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).
I think it's important to keep in mind the implications of supporting Wikimedia. These implications fall, in my opinion, in two categories: - Use of the trademark - Financial flow (access to specific grants, fundraising)
I see three scenarii:
1) informal national chapters or "chapters to be": There are countries in the world where starting a chapter in the way it is defined today is an endeavour that makes little sense, for political, cultural, philosophical, financial or administrative reasons.
Here I'll make a difference between informal local/national groups (will never be a chapter) and chapters to be (aims at becoming a chapter).
For informal national groups, it is important that the Wikimedia Foundation supports grassroot initiatives that aim at supporting the Wikimedia projects. If the work stays informal, and there is no need for any kind of formality (plan wikimeets, intervene in conferences, that kind of grassroot public outreach), then the support from the Foundation could be minimal, such as maybe a letter of introduction for someone wanting to participate in a conference in a specific country. If, on the other hand, the need shows up for a formal kind of "representation", there are probably many ways to explore on how a group of Wikimedians could integrate an existing structure (some other NGO with similar goals) in order to enter a formal agreement with the WMF re: trademarks and/or fundraising. I believe we could develop some kind of "partnership agreeement with third party non-profits" which would allow active Wikimedians who are not able or willing to form a chapter to intensify outreach in some kind of structured way, under a "Wikimedia banner".
For "chapters to be", I think the same could happen, with the idea that the grassroot initiative wants to take some time to develop into a working national chapter. Growing initiatives with the help of an existing structure could be a good first step towards "chapteriality", and it is important that the WMF follow those initiatives and help the members who wish to develop the best way of founding a chapter by developing ideas in another context.
What I don't see, in either of these cases, is an "informal group" with the same objectives of fundraising and potentially trademark usage that stays completely informal. Of course, national legislations may vary, but in the end, in order to protect the trademark and reputation of Wikimedia, it seems to be very hard to have constantly renewed individuals being the "Wikimedia flagship" in one country or the other.
2) Specific events/projects I don't know about the Gdansk team and whether they have indeed decided to set up an ephemeral organisation, but I suppose it would make sense, in the case of a defined event, or project, to do something of the kind. Again, I suppose legal jurisdictions have different ways of going about this. This said, for such cases, the WMF could also enter some kind of clear agreement which allows the ephemeral group to use the trademarks and fundraise (or find sponsors as for Wikimania) for a specific project.
3) Trans-national interest groups. I remember us discussing wildly the "Association of blind Wikipedians" ;-). It's a good example, as is a potential "Wikimedia Catalunya" and this kind of transnational grassroot initiative is probably the hardest case. Of course, as Thomas Dalton said later in this thread, we can't really (and shouldn't have to) prevent a "Wiki for the blind" organisation to see the light of day. The question comes when this organisation starts to fundraise using the fact that they're going to help the Wikimedia projects and thus comes, to some extent, in competition with existing organisations (chapters and the Foundation). The question is really, at which point is there "actual competition"?
I have researched a bit, while looking at the "catalan case" and my conclusion is that such interest groups might be able to fundraise where national chapters and the Foundation can't. It is impossible (and in any case not desirable) for Wikimedia France or Wikimedia Italia (and one day Wikimedia Spain) to change their bylaws to focus on "catalan" in order to attract some grants that would be only be given to such interest groups or to fundraise in the interested part of the population.
It is, however, easy and desirable that chapters and Foundation support those groups as much as they can, whether by lending them moral and even logistical support or by becoming full partners in their endeavours. This could be done on a case by case basis (The Association of Blind Wikipedians decides to fundraise to make Mediawiki fully usable and that initiative is launched with the partnership of the WMFoundation) or on the longer term (The Association of Catalan Wiki Users is recognized by WM France, WM Italia and WM España as a long-term partner). We could for this take as an example the UNESCO partnership/recognition scheme. [1]
The important thing here being that the more "antennas" we have out there which can attract funds otherwise not available to existing Wikimedia organisations is a Good Thing (tm). As long as these funds are used to promote our mission and goals and support our projects, it does not matter "who" gets them.
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?
So to summarize my ideas: - Case by case recognition of grassroot groups for informal outreach (letters of recommandation if needed) - Partnership agreeement with third party non-profits for local/national groups which integrate existing structures and perform outreach for Wikimedia within those structures. - Joint formal support from existing chapters/the Foundation for transnational initiatives, partnership conventions on a case by case basis and maybe even a partnership scheme such as that of the UNESCO.
Cheers,
Delphine
[1] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=32914&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_... shorturl: http://bit.ly/e59gK
2009/7/8 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
I have researched a bit, while looking at the "catalan case" and my conclusion is that such interest groups might be able to fundraise where national chapters and the Foundation can't. It is impossible (and in any case not desirable) for Wikimedia France or Wikimedia Italia (and one day Wikimedia Spain) to change their bylaws to focus on "catalan" in order to attract some grants that would be only be given to such interest groups or to fundraise in the interested part of the population.
I don't know the details of the "catalan case" and I think it is probably quite different to the "Welsh case", but I'll describe the Wikimedia UK thoughts on that subject. There is a significant possibility of specific grants for improving the Welsh Wikipedia (and other projects) and also simply for donations from the Welsh public (similar things apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland, although to a lesser extent). In order to enable us to take full advantage of those opportunities we specifically got permission from the WMF to use the names "Wikimedia Wales" (etc.) in addition to "Wikimedia UK". We haven't used those names for anything yet, but we have considered the possibility of some kind of sub-chapter (what form that would take legally, I don't know, there are various options, but it would probably be something fairly informal) made up of members from that country carrying out initiatives in that country.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know the details of the "catalan case" and I think it is probably quite different to the "Welsh case"
As far as I know, you're right -- they are very different. :-) My understanding of the "catalan case" is that a group of people want to make a Catalan-language-type chapter, where it is registered in one country but can carry out activities in other areas where the Catalan language is widely used. (They run into a small problem when these areas are located in countries that already have chapters (fr/it) and ones that might have them in the future (es).)
The Meta page will probably give a better explanation for those interested: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_in_Catalan
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 20:20, Casey Browncbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know the details of the "catalan case" and I think it is probably quite different to the "Welsh case"
As far as I know, you're right -- they are very different. :-) My understanding of the "catalan case" is that a group of people want to make a Catalan-language-type chapter, where it is registered in one country but can carry out activities in other areas where the Catalan language is widely used. (They run into a small problem when these areas are located in countries that already have chapters (fr/it) and ones that might have them in the future (es).)
The Meta page will probably give a better explanation for those interested: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_in_Catalan
Exactly. One (the Welsh) is integrated into the geographic region of one chapter, the other (the Catalan) spreads across geographic regions taken care of by several chapters.
On the case of the Welsh, I see no problem of having a "Wikimedia Wales" as a "section" of Wikimedia UK, for example. But that is a different story :)
Cheers,
Delphine
2009/7/8 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
Exactly. One (the Welsh) is integrated into the geographic region of one chapter, the other (the Catalan) spreads across geographic regions taken care of by several chapters.
On the case of the Welsh, I see no problem of having a "Wikimedia Wales" as a "section" of Wikimedia UK, for example. But that is a different story :)
That's what I thought. I felt it was worth bringing up the other story as well, though - it's still relevant to this discussion.
I think a possible solution for this kind of thing might be "Working Groups", each carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited charter to lead such a group.
The issue here is that when dealing with a small unorganized group, really the only practicable way to maintain communication and accountability is through an individual.
This would be the type of structure that from my experience would work best with embryonic local efforts crystallizing in something like a "Wikimedia Working Group for Tennessee", and I could also see it working with supra-local efforts like "Wikimedia Working Group for Catalan".
Of course, the "Working Group Organizer" can and should delegate activities to other trusted persons, but the overall responsibility (and the blame if things somehow go horribly wrong) is theirs.
Thanks, Pharos
2009/7/8 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 06:54, Michael Snowwikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
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?
As an answer to this question, I would say yes. My nuances come later.
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).
I think it's important to keep in mind the implications of supporting Wikimedia. These implications fall, in my opinion, in two categories:
- Use of the trademark
- Financial flow (access to specific grants, fundraising)
I see three scenarii:
- informal national chapters or "chapters to be":
There are countries in the world where starting a chapter in the way it is defined today is an endeavour that makes little sense, for political, cultural, philosophical, financial or administrative reasons.
Here I'll make a difference between informal local/national groups (will never be a chapter) and chapters to be (aims at becoming a chapter).
For informal national groups, it is important that the Wikimedia Foundation supports grassroot initiatives that aim at supporting the Wikimedia projects. If the work stays informal, and there is no need for any kind of formality (plan wikimeets, intervene in conferences, that kind of grassroot public outreach), then the support from the Foundation could be minimal, such as maybe a letter of introduction for someone wanting to participate in a conference in a specific country. If, on the other hand, the need shows up for a formal kind of "representation", there are probably many ways to explore on how a group of Wikimedians could integrate an existing structure (some other NGO with similar goals) in order to enter a formal agreement with the WMF re: trademarks and/or fundraising. I believe we could develop some kind of "partnership agreeement with third party non-profits" which would allow active Wikimedians who are not able or willing to form a chapter to intensify outreach in some kind of structured way, under a "Wikimedia banner".
For "chapters to be", I think the same could happen, with the idea that the grassroot initiative wants to take some time to develop into a working national chapter. Growing initiatives with the help of an existing structure could be a good first step towards "chapteriality", and it is important that the WMF follow those initiatives and help the members who wish to develop the best way of founding a chapter by developing ideas in another context.
What I don't see, in either of these cases, is an "informal group" with the same objectives of fundraising and potentially trademark usage that stays completely informal. Of course, national legislations may vary, but in the end, in order to protect the trademark and reputation of Wikimedia, it seems to be very hard to have constantly renewed individuals being the "Wikimedia flagship" in one country or the other.
- Specific events/projects
I don't know about the Gdansk team and whether they have indeed decided to set up an ephemeral organisation, but I suppose it would make sense, in the case of a defined event, or project, to do something of the kind. Again, I suppose legal jurisdictions have different ways of going about this. This said, for such cases, the WMF could also enter some kind of clear agreement which allows the ephemeral group to use the trademarks and fundraise (or find sponsors as for Wikimania) for a specific project.
- Trans-national interest groups.
I remember us discussing wildly the "Association of blind Wikipedians" ;-). It's a good example, as is a potential "Wikimedia Catalunya" and this kind of transnational grassroot initiative is probably the hardest case. Of course, as Thomas Dalton said later in this thread, we can't really (and shouldn't have to) prevent a "Wiki for the blind" organisation to see the light of day. The question comes when this organisation starts to fundraise using the fact that they're going to help the Wikimedia projects and thus comes, to some extent, in competition with existing organisations (chapters and the Foundation). The question is really, at which point is there "actual competition"?
I have researched a bit, while looking at the "catalan case" and my conclusion is that such interest groups might be able to fundraise where national chapters and the Foundation can't. It is impossible (and in any case not desirable) for Wikimedia France or Wikimedia Italia (and one day Wikimedia Spain) to change their bylaws to focus on "catalan" in order to attract some grants that would be only be given to such interest groups or to fundraise in the interested part of the population.
It is, however, easy and desirable that chapters and Foundation support those groups as much as they can, whether by lending them moral and even logistical support or by becoming full partners in their endeavours. This could be done on a case by case basis (The Association of Blind Wikipedians decides to fundraise to make Mediawiki fully usable and that initiative is launched with the partnership of the WMFoundation) or on the longer term (The Association of Catalan Wiki Users is recognized by WM France, WM Italia and WM España as a long-term partner). We could for this take as an example the UNESCO partnership/recognition scheme. [1]
The important thing here being that the more "antennas" we have out there which can attract funds otherwise not available to existing Wikimedia organisations is a Good Thing (tm). As long as these funds are used to promote our mission and goals and support our projects, it does not matter "who" gets them.
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?
So to summarize my ideas:
- Case by case recognition of grassroot groups for informal outreach
(letters of recommandation if needed)
- Partnership agreeement with third party non-profits for
local/national groups which integrate existing structures and perform outreach for Wikimedia within those structures.
- Joint formal support from existing chapters/the Foundation for
transnational initiatives, partnership conventions on a case by case basis and maybe even a partnership scheme such as that of the UNESCO.
Cheers,
Delphine
[1] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=32914&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_... shorturl: http://bit.ly/e59gK
-- ~notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 04:11, Pharospharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I think a possible solution for this kind of thing might be "Working Groups", each carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited charter to lead such a group.
The issue here is that when dealing with a small unorganized group, really the only practicable way to maintain communication and accountability is through an individual.
This would be the type of structure that from my experience would work best with embryonic local efforts crystallizing in something like a "Wikimedia Working Group for Tennessee", and I could also see it working with supra-local efforts like "Wikimedia Working Group for Catalan".
The issue here is that, in the Catalan case for example, the effort is already beyond just a "working group". You have a group of people who are more than mature to have their own organisation and make it succesful. What they lack is "legitimity" under the Wikimedia banner in order to talk to potential donors who would support their efforts if they only had "the name".
Of course, the "Working Group Organizer" can and should delegate activities to other trusted persons, but the overall responsibility (and the blame if things somehow go horribly wrong) is theirs.
I find this idea interesting, it fits in the smaller "partnership scheme" which entails giving letters of recommandation or support for a specific group, as well as maybe in the "chapters to be" scheme.
Delphine
I also like this approach *On most informal level - a Working Group, carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited agreement/recognition letter with the Foundation *On intermediate level - a legally recognized organizations that could support an interest group, the organisation either being dedicated to the groups activity or being a supporting organization "hosting" the groups activities. In either case it should be possible to get an agreement in place without the full demands required for being recognized as a Chapter.
The Catalonian effort and any Blind wikipedian could go with the second level of partnership
Groups in an early phase to become a chapter could go with the first (time defined review would in these cases be good in order to review the progress to become a full chapter)
Anders
Delphine Ménard skrev:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 04:11, Pharospharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I think a possible solution for this kind of thing might be "Working Groups", each carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited charter to lead such a group.
The issue here is that when dealing with a small unorganized group, really the only practicable way to maintain communication and accountability is through an individual.
This would be the type of structure that from my experience would work best with embryonic local efforts crystallizing in something like a "Wikimedia Working Group for Tennessee", and I could also see it working with supra-local efforts like "Wikimedia Working Group for Catalan".
The issue here is that, in the Catalan case for example, the effort is already beyond just a "working group". You have a group of people who are more than mature to have their own organisation and make it succesful. What they lack is "legitimity" under the Wikimedia banner in order to talk to potential donors who would support their efforts if they only had "the name".
Of course, the "Working Group Organizer" can and should delegate activities to other trusted persons, but the overall responsibility (and the blame if things somehow go horribly wrong) is theirs.
I find this idea interesting, it fits in the smaller "partnership scheme" which entails giving letters of recommandation or support for a specific group, as well as maybe in the "chapters to be" scheme.
Delphine
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Anders Wennerstenanders.wennersten@bonetmail.com wrote:
I also like this approach *On most informal level - a Working Group, carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited agreement/recognition letter with the Foundation *On intermediate level - a legally recognized organizations that could support an interest group, the organisation either being dedicated to the groups activity or being a supporting organization "hosting" the groups activities. In either case it should be possible to get an agreement in place without the full demands required for being recognized as a Chapter.
Personally I agree the second point with different levels of approach to the "local Chapter" status.
Ilario
2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
The issue here is that, in the Catalan case for example, the effort is already beyond just a "working group". You have a group of people who are more than mature to have their own organisation and make it succesful. What they lack is "legitimity" under the Wikimedia banner in order to talk to potential donors who would support their efforts if they only had "the name".
I think a formal "Association of Catalan Wikimedians", recognised by the WMF as an "affiliated organisation" and with something quite similar to the chapters agreement would work well. Calling it a chapter will cause problems, since it overlaps with other chapters, but it can be much the same thing just with a different name.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 16:18, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
The issue here is that, in the Catalan case for example, the effort is already beyond just a "working group". You have a group of people who are more than mature to have their own organisation and make it succesful. What they lack is "legitimity" under the Wikimedia banner in order to talk to potential donors who would support their efforts if they only had "the name".
I think a formal "Association of Catalan Wikimedians", recognised by the WMF as an "affiliated organisation" and with something quite similar to the chapters agreement would work well. Calling it a chapter will cause problems, since it overlaps with other chapters, but it can be much the same thing just with a different name.
Yes, keeping in mind that the most important thing here is, in my opinion, close collaboration with the chapters that are "touched" by this organisation. In cases like this, I am not sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is the best partner. In any case, the WMFoundation definitely should not be the "only" partner and recognition should also come from the chapters potentially involved.
Delphine
2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
I think a formal "Association of Catalan Wikimedians", recognised by the WMF as an "affiliated organisation" and with something quite similar to the chapters agreement would work well. Calling it a chapter will cause problems, since it overlaps with other chapters, but it can be much the same thing just with a different name.
Yes, keeping in mind that the most important thing here is, in my opinion, close collaboration with the chapters that are "touched" by this organisation. In cases like this, I am not sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is the best partner. In any case, the WMFoundation definitely should not be the "only" partner and recognition should also come from the chapters potentially involved.
Interesting thoughts. The WMF needs to be a partner since the WMF owns the relevant trademarks. The chapters certainly need to be involved, but I don't know if they should be involved in the recognition part (apart from maybe writing letters of support to the WMF). The WMF should probably consult them, since if one chapter is opposed it could cause some problems, so that should be sorted out beforehand. I'm just not really sure what it would mean for the chapters to "recognise" them.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 16:41, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
I think a formal "Association of Catalan Wikimedians", recognised by the WMF as an "affiliated organisation" and with something quite similar to the chapters agreement would work well. Calling it a chapter will cause problems, since it overlaps with other chapters, but it can be much the same thing just with a different name.
Yes, keeping in mind that the most important thing here is, in my opinion, close collaboration with the chapters that are "touched" by this organisation. In cases like this, I am not sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is the best partner. In any case, the WMFoundation definitely should not be the "only" partner and recognition should also come from the chapters potentially involved.
Interesting thoughts. The WMF needs to be a partner since the WMF owns the relevant trademarks. The chapters certainly need to be involved, but I don't know if they should be involved in the recognition part (apart from maybe writing letters of support to the WMF). The WMF should probably consult them, since if one chapter is opposed it could cause some problems, so that should be sorted out beforehand. I'm just not really sure what it would mean for the chapters to "recognise" them.
You're right, the term "recognize" in that context is probably the wrong term. In my initial email I meant "recognize as a long term partner", which does not mean that those organisations can bear in any kind of way the name Wikimedia somethingorother, but rather that the Wikimedia Chapters involved enter a long-term partnership with them (or a short term on specific projects for example).
It could be assimilated to the way organisations partner up to answer EU grants for example. Each keeps their autonomy, but they all work together towards a common goal. Call it "support" or "partnership", not "recognition", that probably makes more sense.
Take the German initiative for Nachwachsende Rohstoffe for example. The flagship of this initiative is an independant organisation, the Nova Institute and Wikimedia Deutschland supported them in their initiative and even took part in it by delegating someone to help them follow Wikipedia guidelines, giving more credit to their initiative to support the Wikimedia projects. That's the kind of "strong partnership" I'm thinking about.
Delphine
2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
It could be assimilated to the way organisations partner up to answer EU grants for example. Each keeps their autonomy, but they all work together towards a common goal. Call it "support" or "partnership", not "recognition", that probably makes more sense.
Yes, "partnership" is certainly a good term. The nature of that partnership would be a matter for the chapter and the other organisation, though, rather than something to be decided by the larger community.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org