[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:58, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic
> remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that
> we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions we
> have talked about how we should try to engage volunteers and let them do
> what they are best at - I still stand behind that. That however also means
> that we should recognize that the chapters model will not work for every
> single person or group of persons.
>
> This does not necessarily have to correlate with a 'shift of power' or
> disengaging chapters - it *should* be about engaging more volunteers, and
> allowing them to do great work with the best tools available. So let us
> focus on that.
>
> I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement
> relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF:
> 1) Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day
> 2) Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow into a
> chapter
>
> The group 1) will probably mainly be the case because of either legal
> reasons or because there is not enough critical mass yet. I don't think
> anyone disagrees we should give them the space they need. This includes for
> example Wikimedia Croatia, Kazachstan and Georgia.
>
> The group 2) will in my expectation consist of groups that are indeed more
> aligned along cultural ideas. To mind come Amical (as discussed) and
> Esperantists. Now this is where things apparently become complicated,
> because somehow things can get conflicting when they start to compete with
> chapters. There are a few things relevant here in the recognition process
> by X-committee:
> * What will be the rights will determine to large extent how high the
> threshold will be
> * If there is a geographical component (explicit or not) there should,
> imho, be a consultation with the relevant other organizations overlapping
> with that component. I don't know if it is realistic to go as far as a
> veto, but it should definitely be a very serious part of the process. This
> should probably be reciprocal - if a chapter is to be recognized other
> groups in that area should be consulted, too.
> * We should have clear to what extent trademarks and fundraising rights go
> - both for chapters and non-chapter organizations.
> * We have to remain very careful about political statements. I am
> personally a bit hesistant with recognizing any organization which is
> politically oriented. Hence, this  analysis should also be part of the
> recognition process of any movement organization. To give an entirely
> obvious example: I would not feel comfortable if any organization would be
> founded based on ethnically oriented principles, or would be discriminating
> in its membership based on principles that would be considered illegal in
> most countries (even if it is not illegal in that specific country).
> Another obvious example: I would feel extremely uncomfortable if any of
> these organizations would only allow men to vote in their assemblies or if
> there are religious requirements.
> * In general I would like to find a way to ensure that relations are good
> between the organization and the communities and relevant other
> organizations. I doubt we ever can formalize that into a demand, but all
> efforts should go into this of course.
>
> Probably there are some more criteria which are currently already checked
> upon (although not formally in a checklist) by the recognition of chapters
> that should be part of this.  I think it would be helpful if chapcom can
> tackle that issue in it's berlin meeting.
>
> Anyway, just some thoughts. As a final remark, I sincerely hope that we
> will not fall in the trap of building policies around a single case - but
> rather focus on the big picture and then afterwards test that picture on
> the single scenario. Amical is a complicated case, and it would be very
> easy to loose ourselves in who's at fault, the details and what solutions
> do not work in their case.

Yes.