[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

[Samuel Klein]

> 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 ?

As Andre says, Affiliates need permission to use the WMF marks on
their own sites / banners, or to run cross-promotions for shared
projects.  (We might want to get reciprocal approval to use their
marks in the same way)

No-one needs trademarks to get grants, but a recognition process can
be tied with a basic assessment that a group is working effectively.
If done effectively, this would be a useful flag when applying for
grants from the WMF, chapters, or external groups.

>> 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".

I don't see this happening, any more than chapters might today be
downgraded (or threatened) to "not chapters" by not having a chapter
agreement renewed.

Chapters as a diverse group are better at defining "Wikimedia mission
alignment" than the Foundation -- the best recommendation I have seen
so far for measuring mission alignment would involve a chapters
council.  (IMO this would be improved upon by a process involving
project contributors as well)

> 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 ?
>
> For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a
> partner or an affiliate ?

Likely an affiliate.  The might become a partner if they were to
request adoption by WMF, but they are not currently representing
Wikimedia as a movement within the universe of maps.

> Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ?

Likely a partner, as their focus is representing Wikimedia within
catalan culture and community.

> And if there is a chapter-to-be somewhere, already a legal entity but not
> yet approved by a chapter, would that be a partner or an affiliate ?

Neither, it would likely be an Association.
(It would not qualify as a partner if it was focused on a geography,
it would not qualify as an affiliate if it did no work other than
wikimedia projects)


As Thomas Dalton notes, Chapters are crisply defined, without overlap,
and closely tied to existing legal, political, social and financial
structure in the world (which tend to follow national boundaries).
This makes them an excellent long-term network for supporting efforts
throughout the world.

Partners would be more variably defined, though each be linked to
their own circles of knowledge or culture.

Millosh writes:
> 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.

Yes, this was the original idea:  Partners and chapters would both be
in-movement organizations, not identical but both shaping our identity
and representing Wikimedia to the world.

SJ

[ Many of these questions and answers are being consolidated on the
Meta talk page. ]