[Foundation-l] A chapters-related question

[Anders Wennersten]

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, Pharos<pharosofalexandria at 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
>
>