Recognizing new affiliations

Discussion:

Samuel Klein

2012-02-10 15:43:32 UTC

The Wikimedia Board is drafting two resolutions to recognize new
models of affiliation. The text will be posted on Meta for discussion
and improvement, between now and 10 March.

== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==

In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our
movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation
of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement:

*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with
Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography.
Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the
Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and
would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.

*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission
aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other
topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must
reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia
trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be
allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.

*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established
contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the
Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and
events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in
a public place, and confirming their contact information. An
association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia
marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can
be supported through individual reimbursement.

*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support
the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use
of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and
collaboration with Wikimedia.

== Recognizing new affiliation models ==

In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated
groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to
include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of
procedure to cover:
* recognizing all group models
* mentoring chapters and partner organiations
* reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups

The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be
effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.

This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15
June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.

References:
* [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope|]]
* [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure|]]

Sample charter:
* [[wmf:Audit charter|]]

aude

2012-02-10 15:50:10 UTC

Permalink

Post by Samuel Klein
The Wikimedia Board is drafting two resolutions to recognize new
models of affiliation. The text will be posted on Meta for discussion
and improvement, between now and 10 March.

Will you please send this to internal-l? Is there really any
consensus or broad support for this?

While its great that you want input on the wording, I have heard
enough concerns that it's a bit alarming the board is going forth with
the movement roles stuff despite the concerns.

And why March 10? And how about discussion at the chapter meeting?
Maybe a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?

Katie

Post by Samuel Klein
== Expansion of movement affiliation models ==
In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our
movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation
*: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with
Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography.
Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the
Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and
would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission
aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other
topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must
reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia
trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be
allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia.
*: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established
contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the
Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and
events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in
a public place, and confirming their contact information. An
association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia
marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can
be supported through individual reimbursement.
*: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support
the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use
of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and
collaboration with Wikimedia.
== Recognizing new affiliation models ==
In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated
groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to
include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of
* recognizing all group models
* mentoring chapters and partner organiations
* reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups
The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be
effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation.
This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15
June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting.
* [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope|]]
* [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure|]]
* [[wmf:Audit charter|]]
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

Galileo Vidoni

2012-02-10 15:52:00 UTC

Permalink

Post by Samuel Klein
The Wikimedia Board is drafting two resolutions to recognize new

Post by Samuel Klein
models of affiliation. The text will be posted on Meta for discussion
and improvement, between now and 10 March.

Will you please send this to internal-l? Is there really any consensus or
broad support for this?
While its great that you want input on the wording, I have heard enough
concerns that it's a bit alarming the board is going forth with the
movement roles stuff despite the concerns.
And why March 10? And how about discussion at the chapter meeting? Maybe
a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?
Katie

Agree.

Best,
galio

Samuel Klein

2012-02-11 06:41:07 UTC

Permalink

Will you please send this to internal-l? Is there really any consensus or broad support for this?

Hi Katie. It should be sent out this weekend.
I believe there is broad support for recognizing new models for
affiliation; if there are implementation details for which there is
not such support, I expect they will be sorted out in public
discussion.

And how about discussion at the chapter meeting?
Maybe a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?

This was put out in advance of the chapter meeting, to lead to
discussion there.
A joint session is a good idea, do you mean specifically about new
affiliations?

SJ

Béria Lima

2012-02-11 15:16:31 UTC

Permalink

She meant that you pushing a decision BEFORE the Chapters meeting by
placing a deadline before the meeting. And I second: What is the rush?
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*

Post by aude

Will you please send this to internal-l? Is there really any consensus

or broad support for this?
Hi Katie. It should be sent out this weekend.
I believe there is broad support for recognizing new models for
affiliation; if there are implementation details for which there is
not such support, I expect they will be sorted out in public
discussion.

And how about discussion at the chapter meeting?
Maybe a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?

This was put out in advance of the chapter meeting, to lead to
discussion there.
A joint session is a good idea, do you mean specifically about new
affiliations?
SJ
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

Lodewijk

2012-02-11 20:35:33 UTC

Permalink

Hi Béria,

I think it depends what depends on this decision. I can very well imagine
that many decisions in fund dissemination depend on who exactly is involved
in this movement of ours. For that discussion it would be helpful to have
already a good definition of the groups - then we can have a constructive
discussion next about what the rights and obligations of each of these
groups (and the WMF) would be to each other and in general. So if (*if*) we
want to have the discussion about fund dissemination in Berlin, it would
make a lot of sense to me to decide on these definitions (a little while)
before the meeting. Unless you would be fine to have that discussion about
funds without knowing who exactly is in this movement.

Another reason (less important) could be that it would be helpful if
chapcom could implement some parts of this in its procedures at its face to
face meeting in Berlin, too.

We can't keep pushing all decisions to Berlin, because that would simply
result in an ineffective meeting. Anyway, I might be wrong that this is the
reasoning of Samuel on this timeline, but that would for me be a valid
argument :) The question would the be however, is there a good reason to
wait? Are there strong disagreements? (I know there are some parts of it
which we disagreed on within chapcom, because of the practical
implementations).

Best,

Lodewijk

Post by BÃ©ria Lima
She meant that you pushing a decision BEFORE the Chapters meeting by
placing a deadline before the meeting. And I second: What is the rush?
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*

Post by aude

Will you please send this to internal-l? Is there really any consensus

And how about discussion at the chapter meeting?
Maybe a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?

Béria Lima

2012-02-11 20:37:40 UTC

Permalink

Define is one thing, but I do believe would be better have the final
decision in person (Maybe in Paris if Berlin is too far away.)
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*

Post by Lodewijk
Hi Béria,
I think it depends what depends on this decision. I can very well imagine
that many decisions in fund dissemination depend on who exactly is involved
in this movement of ours. For that discussion it would be helpful to have
already a good definition of the groups - then we can have a constructive
discussion next about what the rights and obligations of each of these
groups (and the WMF) would be to each other and in general. So if (*if*) we
want to have the discussion about fund dissemination in Berlin, it would
make a lot of sense to me to decide on these definitions (a little while)
before the meeting. Unless you would be fine to have that discussion about
funds without knowing who exactly is in this movement.
Another reason (less important) could be that it would be helpful if
chapcom could implement some parts of this in its procedures at its face to
face meeting in Berlin, too.
We can't keep pushing all decisions to Berlin, because that would simply
result in an ineffective meeting. Anyway, I might be wrong that this is the
reasoning of Samuel on this timeline, but that would for me be a valid
argument :) The question would the be however, is there a good reason to
wait? Are there strong disagreements? (I know there are some parts of it
which we disagreed on within chapcom, because of the practical
implementations).
Best,
Lodewijk
She meant that you pushing a decision BEFORE the Chapters meeting by

Post by BÃ©ria Lima
placing a deadline before the meeting. And I second: What is the rush?
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*

Post by aude

Will you please send this to internal-l? Is there really any consensus

And how about discussion at the chapter meeting?
Maybe a joint chapter-wmf session at chapters meeting to talk?

Samuel Klein

2012-02-11 21:41:00 UTC

Permalink

I agree with this - clarity is important for the sake of these discussions.

However the new affiliations would have limited impact on funds
dissemination; any group that would be recognized as a new affiliation
can already get funds through an existing channel. Recognizing other
affiliations primarily makes it easier for groups to use the
trademarks, and for the movement to give social recognition to a group
before it passes the high bar of 'critical mass' of effort.

Post by Lodewijk
Another reason (less important) could be that it would be helpful if chapcom
could implement some parts of this in its procedures at its face to face
meeting in Berlin, too.
We can't keep pushing all decisions to Berlin, because that would simply
result in an ineffective meeting.

These two reasons are more relevant to working this out in advance of
Berlin. There are details to discuss and sort out about affiliations,
but there are larger issues that will require face-to-face discussion.

Post by Lodewijk
The question would the be however, is there a good reason to
wait? Are there strong disagreements? (I know there are some parts of it
which we disagreed on within chapcom, because of the practical
implementations).

I would like to know the answer as well. Any practical problems can
be amended or changed.
Are there philosophical disagreements?

Sam.

Béria Lima

2012-02-12 05:08:22 UTC

Permalink

I gave my personal opinion one hour before your mail Samuel.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*

Post by Lodewijk

Post by Lodewijk
Hi Béria,
I think it depends what depends on this decision. I can very well imagine
that many decisions in fund dissemination depend on who exactly is

involved

Post by Lodewijk
in this movement of ours. For that discussion it would be helpful to have
already a good definition of the groups - then we can have a constructive
discussion next about what the rights and obligations of each of these
groups (and the WMF) would be to each other and in general. So if (*if*)

Post by Lodewijk
want to have the discussion about fund dissemination in Berlin, it would
make a lot of sense to me to decide on these definitions (a little while)
before the meeting. Unless you would be fine to have that discussion

about

Post by Lodewijk
funds without knowing who exactly is in this movement.

I agree with this - clarity is important for the sake of these discussions.
However the new affiliations would have limited impact on funds
dissemination; any group that would be recognized as a new affiliation
can already get funds through an existing channel. Recognizing other
affiliations primarily makes it easier for groups to use the
trademarks, and for the movement to give social recognition to a group
before it passes the high bar of 'critical mass' of effort.

Post by Lodewijk
Another reason (less important) could be that it would be helpful if

chapcom

Post by Lodewijk
could implement some parts of this in its procedures at its face to face
meeting in Berlin, too.
We can't keep pushing all decisions to Berlin, because that would simply
result in an ineffective meeting.

I would like to know the answer as well. Any practical problems can
be amended or changed.
Are there philosophical disagreements?
Sam.