[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

[Joan Goma]

> From: Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> Message-ID:
>        <CACf6Bev=Wv-N89LB4b3DAY05RDYp9qhd4UVTGZeX3u=HvVhh5g at mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hiya all,
>
> 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.


+1



> 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.
>

You are disappointing me Lodewijk. You are a man who always find the way to
say things without offending but without hiding the problems. If Amical has
done something you believe is wrong please go ahead and complain. Up to now
our discussion page is empty.[1]

It is not fair to say in a public list that we are a complicated case and
insinuate that somebody is at fault without explaining which complications
we have created to you.


 [1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Associaci%C3%B3_Amical_Viquip%C3%A8dia&action=edit&redlink=1