[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

[Milos Rancic]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 17:48, Florence Devouard <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 ;)

I expect to see all organizations on the same territory to cooperate
with each other from the beginning.

I am also sure that organizations which operate on the same territory
will be distinctive enough to be easily recognized. I don't expect
that ChapCom and Board would be insane enough to recognize
"Wikimedians in France" as partner organization, besides Wikimedia
France. And possible "Esperantist Wikimedians" based in France would
be distinct enough from Wikimedia France.