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

[Geoffrey Plourde]

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 at bonetmail.com>
To: foundation-l at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-l mailing list
> Internal-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
>
>  

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