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

Mon Jul 6 09:04:07 UTC 2009

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