Pessoal,
Michael Snow, presidente do conselho da Fundação, começou hoje uma discussão
na Foundation-list sobre o caso do "capítulo" brasileiro (mensagem copiada
abaixo). Seria muito bacana compartilharmos nossos comentários por lá
também.
abs,
Thomas
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>
Date: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] A chapters-related question
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking
at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with.
(What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was
approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since
decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time.
However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific
case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage
grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into
the chapters framework?
There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups
that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite
the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to
organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian
situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better
sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe
there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and
continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and
formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to
have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after
it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm
wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this
as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).
Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this
something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in?
How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized
groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and
compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?
--Michael Snow