Thank you, and don't worry, we understand the circumstances, that's why
we haven't bothered you guys all along.
About collaboration, as we're all together in this we depend on
communicating perspectives, but then that news piece certainly provided
the wrong frame and with your reorganization it took quite a long time
for that to be brought up and cleared out.
That was too bad. But here we are now, back in our saddles =)
About that specific recommendation, as I see you guys keep bringing it
up, I'd ask you to just consider how it may loose its meaning, even
contradict it, when approval as a chapter is not one of the necessary
reasons leading a group to register a corporation.
And by that I mean that we're a group that moved to form a corporation
because it is a collective management tool that some of us encountered
concrete, present needs for in their work.
We also plan for this corporation to eventually become a recognized
chapter, and for that we have been discussing its bylaws with you, and
we intend to adapt them should you have recommendations.
It's that simple.
Thank you for giving us some context and again thank you all for your
time as well!
On 05-03-2013 15:38, Bence Damokos wrote:
I just wanted to thank you for your patience. Indeed the situation is
that we have lowered our engagement on the issue last Autumn as it was a
bit difficult to handle as we perhaps felt that we did not have all the
information, our advice was ignored (for example, founding an
association without our approval and explicit disapproval is rarely
received as a sign of good collaboration on the road towards
affiliation) and there were few volunteers on AffCom both willing to
engage and having the time to process all the information.
Recently we have renewed our membership and are about to do an internal
reappraisal of our on-going stance on this application, which will
hopefully result in a clearer path and understanding of the next steps.
I expect we will be re-reading your current and previous answers and try
to figure out whether we see the proposed organization as compatible
with the chapter model or one of the other recognized models, and we
will proceed to engage you based on that understanding or more likely in
search for more information to be able to reach an understanding.
I recognize that this has been very frustrating for you and I hope we
can have a more fruitful relationship going forward. Please give us a
bit more time until the renewed committee gets up to speed on this
application with all its history.
Again, I thank you for your patience and all your work in advancing our
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Alexandre Hannud Abdo
<abdo(a)member.fsf.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
Hi Tomasz, everyone,
I stand by what Rodrigo stated based on the links he provides us, to
which I add this message:
wherein on October 25 I explicitly called out to you and Maria that all
questions had been replied.
So please stand with less prejudice towards us and weight your words.
Regarding the guide, we find it useful, and yet it is what it is, a
The purpose of a persistent committee is to accumulate wisdom and deal
with situations that should not be completely standardized, as the
Wikimedia Movement has understood is the case with chapter formation.
Because of that, we thank you very much for your time, and so let us go
ahead to make the best use of yours and ours. There are answers to your
latest questions on the wiki, plase check the page and fill it in should
there be other ones.
On 27-02-2013 <tel:27-02-2013> 06:57, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:
Your question (9 October 2012)
Our answer (25 October 2012)
/"Just so we don't go off-label, can we agree that will be covered in
*wmbrorganization* ? ^=^ --Solstag
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Solstag>) 10:27, 9 October
Sure, feel free to answer this wherever you want. odder
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Odder>) 10:57, 9
And if the answer was not clear, we have not received any feedback
saying it was not yet clear.
On 27 February 2013 06:39, Tomasz W. Kozłowski
On 27 February 2013 <tel:2013> 04:41, Alexandre wrote:
> There has not been a single edit to that page or public
Exactly; there have not been any edits even from your
as I pointed out in my previous message,
there is at least one
question that still awaits an answer; I asked it on October 9, and
have never heard back since.
As soon as you provide questions on that page we
can provide an
> if there are any real issues to be clarified that have not
For now, let us wait until the questions I asked in my e-mail are
answered; these /are/ real issues, and they haven't been clarified
> The questions you seem to bring in your email, as I
> trivial and have been made and answered
informally, but if
> feel you need a group stateent, I again
point you to the
From my point of view, these are hardly trivial matters; quite the
opposite, I would consider a group getting approved without
the usual process--described at
As far as I know, this Committee has never been informed about
plans to hold a founding meeting for the
Association during that
conference; neither was it told about the actions to register the
Association that (apparently) followed that meeting. All this
us as a surprise when we learned about it on
the day of the
> Just tells us exactly what it is you need to know, and we
thorough answers just as we have always done.
I was under the impression that my questions were clear enough; if
they are not, please let me know and I will try to rephrase
Tomasz W. Kozłowski
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
+55 11 979 718 884
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
Affiliations Committee mailing list
WikimediaBR-l mailing list