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

Mon Jul 6 08:41:28 UTC 2009

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