[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

[Florence Devouard]

On 2/13/12 3:56 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouard<anthere9 at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set
>> of "partners" (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with
>> the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship
>> with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each
>> other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money,
>> technical support).
>>
>> These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or
>> WMF.
>>
>> It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a
>> similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations
>> should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ?
>>
>> In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others
>> not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense.
>>
>> In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other
>> organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on
>> the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be
>> no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity.
>>
>> On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my
>> feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :)
>> But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others
>> chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is
>> organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the
>> less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that
>> all chapters be there.
>> This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations,
>> can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there
>> are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be
>> 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity
>> and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the
>> world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are
>> actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and
>> sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision
>> making of who is part and who is not part of the network.
>>
>> One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that
>> chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think
>> it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity.
>>
>> I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main
>> points to implement
>> 1) a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters
>> representants (some tweaks)
>> 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do)
>> 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed
>> by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be
>> improved over time)
>>
>> Hope that unwrap the head :)
>
> The sense of belonging and solidarity is undermined by the position
> that Wikimedia organization requires country behind itself. Not all of
> us share position that two Wikimedian groups can cooperate just if
> both are symbolically linked to the state structure. That's
> ideologically biased and, unfortunately, not biased by our common
> ideology, free access to knowledge.
>
> While associations and affiliates don't sound as in-movement
> organizations, partner organizations and chapters sound like it.

Quite possibly.

Well, I am not sure if I remember well the arguments exactly (those who 
do, please help)

* we supported chapter creation covering a geographical area rather than 
not mostly because a legal entity ought to be linked to a nation legal 
system. "Nation" being in the larger sense. It really ought to be either 
a state (as in USA), or a country (such as France) or a larger but legal 
entity (such Europe)

* I think we suggested that we should not have more than one legal 
entity over the same territory essentially because of 1) the fight it 
could create in terms of fundraising and 2) the confusion it would 
create in "outsiders" (journalists, politicans, etc.) about who should 
be contacted for what

Well... with regards to fundraising, the fight is already there and it 
is likely that most chapters will no more be allowed through wikimedia 
projects websites. They could still fundraise through social media, 
their websites and so on. If donors can stand the confusion between 
giving to a chapter or to WMF, then they can probably stand the 
confusion between giving to a chapter and to a partner organization.
So, this ground for disagreement is likely to decrease anyway.

The other argument was about the "contact". For those of you who were 
already around in 2004-2005, one of the big problems we had is that 
journalists were lost in our "hierarchy" (or absence thereof). Who 
should they be contacted ? Who had authority to speak in the name of ? 
Who could make a decision on behalf of ? I take it that in some country, 
journalists now have understood that.... they would have to live with 
the uncertainty.
But that question stands. When a journalist wonders who he should 
contact, where will he turn ? When a teacher wonders which organization 
he should contact, where will he turn ? When a museum director wants to 
propose a partnership, who should he go to ?

I take it that if chapters and organizations do have good relationships 
and share members, this issue will solve by itself.
But if there are conflicts or at least a competition, the situation is 
bound to get to a total mess.

I totally understand the interest of partners in that context. But if 
the roles, responsibilities and duties of chapters versus partners are 
not clarified, we might be heading to a serious mess ;)