[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

[Florence Devouard]

On 2/13/12 11:04 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
>> From: Florence Devouard<anthere9 at yahoo.com>
>> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
>> Message-ID:<jhar77$4kl$1 at dough.gmane.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
>>> Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use
>>> Wikimedia marks ?
>>> Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
>>>
>>> I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten
>>> to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and
>>> mission aligned with Wikimedia's".
>>
>> Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this
>> decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore
>> except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within
>> the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept
>> redondant with partner organizations.
>>
>> I think you (and many other people expressing concerns about those new
> models) are too optimistic about them and too pessimistic about Chapters. I
> wish we had a lot of problems because there where lots of people wiling to
> join new chapters ans new models. I would be extremely happy to help
> unfolding that kind of mess.
>
>
>> But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the
>> difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to
>> better see what the difference is ?
>>
>
> I think nobody can give examples because there are not cases yet. But from
> my participation in movement roles group I understand that the differences
> come from 3 parameters:
>
> a)Registered organizations / Informal groups
> b)Geography focused / Non geography focused
> c)Their main goal is Wikimedia Projects / They have other goals that
> benefit us.
>
> Then the classification comes like this:
>
> 1)Chapters: Registered / Geography / Wikimedia
> 2)Partner Organizations: Registered / Non Geography / Wikimedia
> 3)Associations: Informal / Geography or not / Wikimedia
> 4)Affiliated: Registered / Geography or not / Other
>
> So in Associations we can have Chapters to be and Partner Organizations to
> be. And some may be Associations for ever not reaching the status of a
> registered entity if they don’t feel the need. (Perhaps the term
> Association is not the best and something like “Wiki-Group” would be better)

:)

Association in French means.... uncorporated non profit.

Wikimedia France is an... association


>>
>> For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a
>> partner or an affiliate ?
>>
>> Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?
>>
>
> Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible.
> First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries, later
> they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter for
> Andorra, later they proposed a sub-national chapter in Spain. Now probably
> they can fit in the Partner Organization model.
>
> You know they are highly thankful to you because you find a place for them
> to participate in Wikilovemsonuments.[1] I think Partner Organization can
> be a solution for them like when you invented the therm “Local area” They
> were not interested in any name nor position in the list their only
> interest where participating in Wikilovesmonuments with the same tools and
> same freedom than any body else.
>
> They are not interested in any kind of exclusivity, they are not interested
> in the name “National Chapter”, their only interest is being able to
> support and promote the Catalan projects with the same tools and same
> freedom you have to promote French ones.

I am surprised by your use of "they"

> [1] Before this change there was an edit war with people erasing their
> participation because they were not a chapter and others including them.
> Then Floence created a place for them and from then everybody was happy:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWiki_Loves_Monuments_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=49614457&oldid=49607752

Indeed :)

FLorence