Proposed text on New Groups

[Galileo Vidoni]

Dear all:

I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during the
past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've already
discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the Frankfurt
meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a little bit
more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or are TBD.
Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is especially
sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response we get now
we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. I put
the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or suggestions
before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion from the MR
working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for discussion --I'd
be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.

During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working
group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator,
envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than
Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found
that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the
existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters,
which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support
all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy
between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within
that territory.

First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal
basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects
but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures
tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national
basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a
certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries
or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These
groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation
and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner
organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange
trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to
be discussed.

On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it is
for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want to
establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize
outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or
public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have
projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to
use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them,
how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly
liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be
overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for
now.

A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the
difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with
identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the
relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and
Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for
territories where a Wikimedia chapter does already exist? Can we propose an
horizontal relationship between chapters and partner organizations when
these have a smaller area of interest and do not operate on the same basis?
If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it? These
are all topics were Wikimedia chapters and other groups should to be heard,
as the MR working group has no authority to settle this issues but merely to
identify them a propose possible solutions.

To sum it up:

== Existing organizations ==

=== Wikimedia Foundation ===
* Interest scope: global
* Territorial range: ideally none (undefined), but operates per se in
territories where chapters don't yet exist
* Representation: global
* Registered (external): yes
* Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement
* Trademarks: own
* Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes

=== Wikimedia chapters ===
* Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects)
* Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not
exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational
entities)
* Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all
of WM projects)
* Registered (external): yes
* Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom
* Trademarks: agreement with WMF
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member fees,
donations
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes

== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==

=== Partner organizations ===
* Interest scope: specific (promotion of WM projects in a determinate
language or of contents about a certain culture)
* Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive
* Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on
behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD)
* Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)
* Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body
* Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD)
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with chapters if registered? (TBD,
but as they don't have a territorial basis they can't do global
fundraising)*, WMF grants? (TBD), chapter grants? (TBD), member fees,
donations
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about organizers and supporters
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes, overseen by WMF on
global level or chapter on national level if they exist (TBD: is there any
reason why the chapter wouldn't sign such an agreement by itself? Think
about language-specific subsidies)

* Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural
sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section
of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly
about geography.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> A possible model would be for chapters in the region
where these partners operate to offer the possibility to donate a percentage
of the money to support these groups' activities --what would obviously need
fundraising agreements between chapters and partner organizations. For
instance, people donating to WM Irak from Irak could have the option to
state that they want a percentage of their donation to support the efforts
of a partner organization focused on promoting Kurdish language contents,
should such an organization and WM Irak exist.

=== Wikimedian associations ===
* Interest scope: variable, undetermined
* Territorial range: variable, mostly subnational, non exclusive
* Representation: non exclusive
* Registered (external): no
* Recognized (internal): yes, almost automatic, revocable
* Trademarks: case-by-case usage possible (TBD), permission by WMF or
chapters if they exist
* Origin of funds: case-by-case WMF grants possible or chapter grants if
they exist
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage)
* Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet
have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to
incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a
conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the
Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility).
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal
negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements

[Lodewijk]

hi Galileo,

thank you for the email - i think it is helpful. Especially the explanation.
If you send this out, I would like to suggest to include a very specific
question on top - and ask it again at the end for people to respond to. So
not general like "please respond to" but rather "what should we do with".
That could hopefully trigger some discussion.

I would also suggest to add a short note on informal Wikipedian groups like
Wikiprojects, with a statement that those fall outside the scope of this
process and that we don't want to tie them down and limit them.

Lodewijk

Post by Galileo Vidoni
I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during
the past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've
already discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the
Frankfurt meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a
little bit more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or
are TBD. Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is
especially sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response
we get now we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in
Berlin. I put the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or
suggestions before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion
from the MR working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for
discussion --I'd be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.
During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working
group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator,
envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than
Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found
that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the
existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters,
which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support
all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy
between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within
that territory.
First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal
basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects
but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures
tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national
basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a
certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries
or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These
groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation
and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner
organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange
trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to
be discussed.
On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it
is for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want
to establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize
outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or
public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have
projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to
use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them,
how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly
liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be
overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for
now.
A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the
difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with
identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the
relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and
Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for
territories where a Wikimedia chapter does already exist? Can we propose an
horizontal relationship between chapters and partner organizations when
these have a smaller area of interest and do not operate on the same basis?
If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it? These
are all topics were Wikimedia chapters and other groups should to be heard,
as the MR working group has no authority to settle this issues but merely to
identify them a propose possible solutions.
== Existing organizations ==
=== Wikimedia Foundation ===
* Interest scope: global
* Territorial range: ideally none (undefined), but operates per se in
territories where chapters don't yet exist
* Representation: global
* Registered (external): yes
* Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement
* Trademarks: own
* Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
=== Wikimedia chapters ===
* Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects)
* Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not
exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational
entities)
* Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all
of WM projects)
* Registered (external): yes
* Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom
* Trademarks: agreement with WMF
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member
fees, donations
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==
=== Partner organizations ===
* Interest scope: specific (promotion of WM projects in a determinate
language or of contents about a certain culture)
* Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive
* Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on
behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD)
* Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)
* Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body
* Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD)
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with chapters if registered?
(TBD, but as they don't have a territorial basis they can't do global
fundraising)*, WMF grants? (TBD), chapter grants? (TBD), member fees,
donations
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about organizers and supporters
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes, overseen by WMF on
global level or chapter on national level if they exist (TBD: is there any
reason why the chapter wouldn't sign such an agreement by itself? Think
about language-specific subsidies)
* Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural
sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section
of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly
about geography.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> A possible model would be for chapters in the region
where these partners operate to offer the possibility to donate a percentage
of the money to support these groups' activities --what would obviously need
fundraising agreements between chapters and partner organizations. For
instance, people donating to WM Irak from Irak could have the option to
state that they want a percentage of their donation to support the efforts
of a partner organization focused on promoting Kurdish language contents,
should such an organization and WM Irak exist.
=== Wikimedian associations ===
* Interest scope: variable, undetermined
* Territorial range: variable, mostly subnational, non exclusive
* Representation: non exclusive
* Registered (external): no
* Recognized (internal): yes, almost automatic, revocable
* Trademarks: case-by-case usage possible (TBD), permission by WMF or
chapters if they exist
* Origin of funds: case-by-case WMF grants possible or chapter grants if
they exist
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage)
* Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet
have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to
incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a
conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the
Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility).
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal
negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Bishakha Datta]

Dear Galileo, (and SJ and Morgan)

Many thanks. It reads very well - and will certainly help clarify thinking
around 'groups'. Have added a few comments inline.
Bishakha

Post by Galileo Vidoni
I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during
the past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've
already discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the
Frankfurt meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a
little bit more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or
are TBD. Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is
especially sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response
we get now we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in
Berlin. I put the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or
suggestions before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion
from the MR working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for
discussion --I'd be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.
During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working
group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator,
envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than
Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found
that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the
existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters,
which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support
all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy
between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within
that territory.
First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal
basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects
but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures
tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national
basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a
certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries
or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These
groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation
and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner
organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange
trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to
be discussed.
On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it
is for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want
to establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize
outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or
public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have
projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to
use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them,
how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly
liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be
overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for
now.
A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the
difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with
identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the
relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and
Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for
territories where a Wikimedia chapter does already exist? Can we propose an
horizontal relationship between chapters and partner organizations when
these have a smaller area of interest and do not operate on the same basis?

Does MR need to have a position on whether these relationships should be
horizontal or asymmetrical, or will these come to us with time and
discussion? Also, what is the relationship between Foundation and either
partner orgs or wikimedian associations on the horizontal/asymmetrical axis?
I ask given the complexity of Foundation-chapter relations - I believe this
is something we should anticipate, and maybe ask the same question for
Foundation too.

Post by Galileo Vidoni
If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it?

Is this something we really want - it implies a power hierarchy?

Post by Galileo Vidoni
These are all topics were Wikimedia chapters and other groups should to be
heard, as the MR working group has no authority to settle this issues but
merely to identify them a propose possible solutions.
== Existing organizations ==
=== Wikimedia Foundation ===
* Interest scope: global
* Territorial range: ideally none (undefined), but operates per se in
territories where chapters don't yet exist

and in India, where the Foundation will open an office this year, even
though a chapter does exist there. So does some allusion need to be made to
this for the sake of accuracy - and to allow this possibility for other
'priority bootstrap' regions in future?

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Representation: global
* Registered (external): yes
* Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement
* Trademarks: own
* Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
=== Wikimedia chapters ===
* Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects)
* Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not
exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational
entities)
* Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all
of WM projects)
* Registered (external): yes
* Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom
* Trademarks: agreement with WMF
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member
fees, donations
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==
=== Partner organizations ===
* Interest scope: specific (promotion of WM projects in a determinate
language or of contents about a certain culture)

Just to push this a bit, would this scope include a partner organization
that may be regional eg parts of Global South, for argument's sake, focused
on 'art and culture'? Would it fall into contents about a certain culture,
or like the wiki projects do we need language around 'special interest
groups'

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive
* Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on
behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD)
* Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)

If they are non-registered, do they become associations? 9ie the next
category?)

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body

Later on, we will have to think of and specify a recognition process.

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD)
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with chapters if registered?
(TBD, but as they don't have a territorial basis they can't do global
fundraising)*, WMF grants? (TBD), chapter grants? (TBD), member fees,
donations

Should we say 'multiple sources' to make clear that it doesn't have to be
just one of these?

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about organizers and supporters
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes, overseen by WMF on
global level or chapter on national level if they exist (TBD: is there any
reason why the chapter wouldn't sign such an agreement by itself? Think
about language-specific subsidies)
* Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural
sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section
of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly
about geography.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> A possible model would be for chapters in the region
where these partners operate to offer the possibility to donate a percentage
of the money to support these groups' activities --what would obviously need
fundraising agreements between chapters and partner organizations. For
instance, people donating to WM Irak from Irak could have the option to
state that they want a percentage of their donation to support the efforts
of a partner organization focused on promoting Kurdish language contents,
should such an organization and WM Irak exist.
=== Wikimedian associations ===
* Interest scope: variable, undetermined
* Territorial range: variable, mostly subnational, non exclusive

Same point as for partner orgs above: should we specify subnational? What if
an association was formed across three cities in three countries for the
same purpose?

* Representation: non exclusive

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Registered (external): no
* Recognized (internal): yes, almost automatic, revocable
* Trademarks: case-by-case usage possible (TBD), permission by WMF or
chapters if they exist
* Origin of funds: case-by-case WMF grants possible or chapter grants if
they exist

Which means they have no independent fundraising capacity eg donations -
this is fine, since they are not registered.

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage)
* Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet
have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to
incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a
conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the
Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility).
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal
negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements

Looks very good overall.

Best
Bishakha

[Jon Huggett]

Dear Galio (and Bishakha and SJ and Morgan)

Thanks for drafting this out. I have also put some comments in line below, like Bishakha.

If you would like us to edit this together before putting it on meta, one option might be to put this on MR wiki. We are already creating a version of the charter there, ahead of putting it on meta. http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter

Also, Theo has put onto meta some good thoughts on groups that you might find interesting, too. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/groups

Look forward to talking Friday!

Cheers

Jon
Jon Huggett
[phone]
[phone]
jon-***@public.gmane.org
www.huggett.com
Skype jon.huggett

Post by Bishakha Datta
Dear Galileo, (and SJ and Morgan)
Many thanks. It reads very well - and will certainly help clarify thinking around 'groups'. Have added a few comments inline.
Bishakha
I apologize for being late on this. I wanted to push this forward during the past week but I couldn't find the time to do so. My idea, as we've already discussed in our penultimate IRC meeting, is to transform the Frankfurt meeting notes on the New Models working group into something a little bit more readable, identifying those topics that are controversial or are TBD. Given that this topic, as is the one on the flow of the money, is especially sensitive for chapters, I think that regardless of the response we get now we should openly discuss it during the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin. I put the proposed text here so that you can make any comments or suggestions before putting it on Meta as an official proposal for discussion from the MR working group. "TBD" marks are supposed to be triggers for discussion --I'd be glad if you find a clearer way to indicate so.
During our face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt, in late January, a working group composed of Sj, Galileo and Morgan, with Jon as a facilitator, envisaged a possible scheme for recognizing new types of groups, other than Wikimedia chapters, existing as part of the Wikimedia movement. We found that there are two main "types" that are already identifiable within the existing groups that do not fill into the definition of Wikimedia chapters, which are independent and incorporated organizations who promote and support all of the Wikimedia projects within a specific state, and act as a proxy between the Wikimedia movement and any other registered organizations within that territory.
First, there are groups who may want to register and operate on a formal basis, but whose interest is to promote not all of the Wikimedia projects but a certain language, culture or subject matter. As languages and cultures tend to go beyond boundaries, these groups can't be identified on a national basis. They are subject-centered rather than spacially-centered (i.e. a certain territory) and can operate on any possible place, on some countries or even in a small area depending on their particular interests. These groups can seek some sort of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and/or existing Wikimedia chapters, and so we choose to call them ''partner organizations'' for the moment. How to recognize them, how to arrange trademark issues and how will they be funded are some of the main aspects to be discussed.
On the other hand, there are groups formed by Wikimedians who, whether it is for cultural, political or any other reasons, do not plan or do not want to establish a formal, registered organization. They could still organize outreach activities and community events, and even deal with private or public organizations on an informal basis. If they grow organized and have projects to develop on the ground, they may ask for funding or to be able to use the Wikimedia trademarks to promote their events. How to identify them, how to recognize them? We think that these groups can operate in a fairly liberal model, with an almost automatic recognition scheme that could be overturned if needed. We choose to call them ''Wikimedian associations'' for now.
A third issue arises, that has to do with clearly establishing the difference between the competences Wikimedia chapters have and with identifying those in which these organizations would differ, as well as the relation Wikimedia chapters would have with partner organizations and Wikimedian associations --will we propose an horizontal model even for territories where a Wikimedia chapter does already exist? Can we propose an horizontal relationship between chapters and partner organizations when these have a smaller area of interest and do not operate on the same basis?
Does MR need to have a position on whether these relationships should be horizontal or asymmetrical, or will these come to us with time and discussion? Also, what is the relationship between Foundation and either partner orgs or wikimedian associations on the horizontal/asymmetrical axis? I ask given the complexity of Foundation-chapter relations - I believe this is something we should anticipate, and maybe ask the same question for Foundation too.
If we indeed have an asymmetrical relationship, how will we define it?
Is this something we really want - it implies a power hierarchy?

At some point do we need to square the circle ... who can give (or take away) approval for different levels of Wikimedia groups ... who is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts?

Post by Bishakha Datta
These are all topics were Wikimedia chapters and other groups should to be heard, as the MR working group has no authority to settle this issues but merely to identify them a propose possible solutions.
== Existing organizations ==
=== Wikimedia Foundation ===
* Interest scope: global
* Territorial range: ideally none (undefined), but operates per se in territories where chapters don't yet exist
and in India, where the Foundation will open an office this year, even though a chapter does exist there. So does some allusion need to be made to this for the sake of accuracy - and to allow this possibility for other 'priority bootstrap' regions in future?

Do we need to define territories as 'exclusive' or can we set rules of engagement when multiple Wikimedia groups work alongside each other?

Post by Bishakha Datta
* Representation: global
* Registered (external): yes
* Recognized (internal): yes, by Wikimedia movement
* Trademarks: own
* Origin of funds: global fundraising, donations
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
=== Wikimedia chapters ===
* Interest scope: global (promotion and support of all WM projects)
* Territorial range: country-specific (Note: if a national chapter does not exist, subnational chapters might be established within subnational entities)
* Representation: country exclusive, no one but the chapter stands for all of WM projects)
* Registered (external): yes
* Recognized (internal): yes, by ChapCom
* Trademarks: agreement with WMF
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with WMF, WMF grants, member fees, donations
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes
== Proposed new groups to be recognized ==
=== Partner organizations ===
* Interest scope: specific (promotion of WM projects in a determinate language or of contents about a certain culture)
Just to push this a bit, would this scope include a partner organization that may be regional eg parts of Global South, for argument's sake, focused on 'art and culture'? Would it fall into contents about a certain culture, or like the wiki projects do we need language around 'special interest groups'
* Territorial range: undefined, variable, non exclusive
* Representation: non exclusive (if not none, i.e. can these groups act on behalf of the Wikimedia movement? TBD)
* Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)
If they are non-registered, do they become associations? 9ie the next category?)
* Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body
Later on, we will have to think of and specify a recognition process.
* Trademarks: agreement possible if registered (TBD)
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with chapters if registered? (TBD, but as they don't have a territorial basis they can't do global fundraising)*, WMF grants? (TBD), chapter grants? (TBD), member fees, donations
Should we say 'multiple sources' to make clear that it doesn't have to be just one of these?
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info about organizers and supporters
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes, overseen by WMF on global level or chapter on national level if they exist (TBD: is there any reason why the chapter wouldn't sign such an agreement by itself? Think about language-specific subsidies)
* Example: A Kurdish group could deal with everything Kurdish in a cultural sense, but another group in that cultural community willing to be a section of a Wikimedia chapter in the region would be fine too, if it cared mainly about geography.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> A possible model would be for chapters in the region where these partners operate to offer the possibility to donate a percentage of the money to support these groups' activities --what would obviously need fundraising agreements between chapters and partner organizations. For instance, people donating to WM Irak from Irak could have the option to state that they want a percentage of their donation to support the efforts of a partner organization focused on promoting Kurdish language contents, should such an organization and WM Irak exist.
=== Wikimedian associations ===
* Interest scope: variable, undetermined
* Territorial range: variable, mostly subnational, non exclusive
Same point as for partner orgs above: should we specify subnational? What if an association was formed across three cities in three countries for the same purpose?
* Representation: non exclusive
* Registered (external): no
* Recognized (internal): yes, almost automatic, revocable
* Trademarks: case-by-case usage possible (TBD), permission by WMF or chapters if they exist
* Origin of funds: case-by-case WMF grants possible or chapter grants if they exist
Which means they have no independent fundraising capacity eg donations - this is fine, since they are not registered.
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info about event organizers (for case-by-case grants and trademark usage)
* Example: A group formed by local Wikimedians in a city which does not yet have a corresponding national Wikimedia chapter. They do not want to incorporate but they plan to organize a GLAM outreach activity or a conference and would need some money to do so (and being able to use the Wikimedia trademarks would be good for PR and visibility).
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: can help with informal negotiations, but WMF or chapter if they exist would sign agreements
Looks very good overall.
Best
Bishakha
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Bishakha Datta]

Post by Jon Huggett
If you would like us to edit this together before putting it on meta, one
option might be to put this on MR wiki. We are already creating a version
of the charter there, ahead of putting it on meta.
http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Dear Jon,

Is there a deadline to contribute to this on the MR wiki - before it goes on
meta?

Bishakha

[Jon Huggett]

Dear Bishakha

In Frankfurt we said that we wanted to put the "table of contents/charter text" onto meta on March 10. IIRC, the rationale for this date was that it is two weeks before we meet in Berlin – to allow enough time for review, comment, correction, revision, percolation, etc.

Cheers

Jon
Jon Huggett
[phone]
[phone]
jon-***@public.gmane.org
www.huggett.com
Skype jon.huggett

Post by Jon Huggett
If you would like us to edit this together before putting it on meta, one option might be to put this on MR wiki. We are already creating a version of the charter there, ahead of putting it on meta. http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Dear Jon,
Is there a deadline to contribute to this on the MR wiki - before it goes on meta?
Bishakha

[Theo10011]

Post by Jon Huggett
Dear Bishakha
In Frankfurt we said that we wanted to put the "table of contents/charter
text" onto meta on March 10. IIRC, the rationale for this date was that it
is two weeks before we meet in Berlin – to allow enough time for review,
comment, correction, revision, percolation, etc.
Cheers
Jon
*Jon Huggett*
[phone]
[phone]
*www.huggett.com*
Skype jon.huggett

Post by Jon Huggett
If you would like us to edit this together before putting it on meta, one
option might be to put this on MR wiki. We are already creating a version
of the charter there, ahead of putting it on meta.
http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Dear Jon,

Is there a deadline to contribute to this on the MR wiki - before it goes on meta?
Bishakha
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

Hi

I added some replies to the working draft of the charter [1]. A couple of
things-

1. I would suggest adding some clause about "dispute resolution" to the
charter, who would have the final say on legal matters. Should there be a
procedure or a contact at the foundation who would have final say in the
matter?

2. After my conversation with lodewijk I've had a different outlook on the
legal implications of permission given to other entities. We should consider
the trademark and other Intellectual property as foundation's domain for
legal purposes with some accommodation for a non-legal, non-monetary
association with the projects.

3. I suggest adding the term "Authorized" to the definitions to entities
that can raise money and use Intellectual property on behalf of the
foundation.

I hope others weigh in on some of these, I've only had one look at the
charter but I plan on adding and clarifying some parts to it. I would like
to bring it up on the list before it's finalized.


Thanks


Theo


[1]
http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charter&curid=86&diff=645&oldid=644<http://goog_1081399683/>
http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charter&curid=86&diff=646&oldid=645<http://goog_1081399683/>
http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charter&curid=86&diff=647&oldid=646

[Samuel Klein]

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
territories where a Wikimedia chapter does already exist? Can we propose an
horizontal relationship between chapters and partner organizations when
these have a smaller area of interest and do not operate on the same basis?

Does MR need to have a position on whether these relationships should be
horizontal or asymmetrical, or will these come to us with time and
discussion? Also, what is the relationship between Foundation and either
partner orgs or wikimedian associations on the horizontal/asymmetrical axis?

For now I think we should simply define the group, and then work out
the symmetry questions later. We do already face this question when
comparing 15-person chapters from small regions to 400-person chapters
from large ones.

The large partner organizations may often be larger than small
geographic chapters.

Post by Bishakha Datta
I ask given the complexity of Foundation-chapter relations - I believe this
is something we should anticipate, and maybe ask the same question for
Foundation too.

Agreed. We can list this among the interesting questions for the future.

-- I think partner organizations should be registered as a legal
entity with an explicit public (and open, non-discriminatory) way for
people to join or otherwise get involved; they might also share basic
standards for activity and transparency, as Chapters do. I expect it
would be just as difficult to become a partner org as a Chapter.

-- There are a few things Chapters organize on their own - an annual
meeting, and a biannual vote for Trustees. We should consider as a
movement if and how partner orgs would be welcome in these two
processes.

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
These are all topics were Wikimedia chapters and other groups should to be
heard, as the MR working group has no authority to settle this issues but
merely to identify them a propose possible solutions.

Right.

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
=== Wikimedia Foundation ===
* Interest scope: global
* Territorial range: ideally none (undefined), but operates per se in
territories where chapters don't yet exist

and in India, where the Foundation will open an office this year, even
though a chapter does exist there. So does some allusion need to be
made to this for the sake of accuracy - and to allow this possibility for
other 'priority bootstrap' regions in future?

Perhaps "operates globally, and fulfills much of the role of a chapter
in territories where chapters don't exist". In territories where
chapters do exist, the Foundation does not fulfill those roles
(generally handing off relevant opportunities to chapters there) but
may work in other capacities.

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
=== Partner organizations ===
* Interest scope: specific (promotion of WM projects in a determinate
language or of contents about a certain culture)

Just to push this a bit, would this scope include a partner organization
that may be regional eg parts of Global South, for argument's sake, focused
on 'art and culture'? Would it fall into contents about a certain culture,
or like the wiki projects do we need language around 'special interest
groups'

Yes, any combination of the above. We might later want to suggest
that these groups not be too narrow (just as we would suggest that
regional chapters not be too tiny).

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Registered (external): yes or optional (TBD)

If they are non-registered, do they become associations? (ie the next
category?)

I'm with Bishakha here. Registered: yes (for a partner org), until
then the group is simply an Association.

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Recognized (internal): yes, by a renamed ChapCom or similar TBD body

Later on, we will have to think of and specify a recognition process.

We might propose a specific idea to ChapCom to see if the current
committee would be willing to grow a bit to handle these other groups
as well. I think a separate group will be needed to recognize
Associations (and perhaps also work with WikiProjects that don't yet
have a named association)

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Origin of funds: fundraising agreements with chapters if registered?
(TBD, but as they don't have a territorial basis they can't do global
fundraising)*, WMF grants? (TBD), chapter grants? (TBD), member fees,
donations

Should we say 'multiple sources' to make clear that it doesn't have to be
just one of these?

Yes; I would explicitly include WMF grants, however. One of the
benefits of being registered and authorized by the Foundation is that
it makes receiving grants easier.

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Transparency and communication: commitment to movement ideals, full info
about organizers and supporters
* Capacity to sign agreements with third parties: yes, overseen by WMF on
global level or chapter on national level if they exist (TBD: is there any
reason why the chapter wouldn't sign such an agreement by itself? Think
about language-specific subsidies)

I think we should recommend explicit cooperation and communication
agreements b/t groups working in the same area (geographic or topical)
-- that they will keep one another informed and work out any overlap
of mission. This can be part of the review process before such groups
are approved. 'oversight' may not be the right word -- the WMF
doesn't 'oversee' European chapter engagements with the EU, for
instance, even though that is an international effort, but there is
good communication b/t Chapters and the Foundation via internal-l when
such discussions are taking place.

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
<nowiki>*</nowiki> A possible model would be for chapters in the region
where these partners operate to offer the possibility to donate a percentage
of the money to support these groups' activities --what would obviously need
fundraising agreements between chapters and partner organizations. For
instance, people donating to WM Irak from Irak could have the option to
state that they want a percentage of their donation to support the efforts
of a partner organization focused on promoting Kurdish language contents,
should such an organization and WM Irak exist.

That is possible. Or there could be a great political and social
disagreement between a non-Kurdish "WM Iraq" and a "Kurdish Wikimedian
Organization", and they could refuse to share resources (even if they
had a nominal cooperation agreement to share information).

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
=== Wikimedian associations ===
* Interest scope: variable, undetermined
* Territorial range: variable, mostly subnational, non exclusive

Same point as for partner orgs above: should we specify subnational? What if
an association was formed across three cities in three countries for the
same purpose?

That sounds fine to me. These to me are like Special Interest Groups
-- they can take any shape, size, or structure.

Post by Bishakha Datta

Post by Galileo Vidoni
* Recognized (internal): yes, almost automatic, revocable
* Trademarks: case-by-case usage possible (TBD), permission by WMF or
chapters if they exist
* Origin of funds: case-by-case WMF grants possible or chapter grants if
they exist

Which means they have no independent fundraising capacity eg donations -
this is fine, since they are not registered.

Right. They could still have membership and dues and such if they
like, and even founding documents and charters [like some big
WikiProjects!], but it would be more informal than a registered group.

Post by Bishakha Datta
At some point do we need to square the circle ... who can give
(or take away) approval for different levels of Wikimedia groups
... who is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts?

The Board should give or take away Authorization for the authorized
groups (chapters now; partner orgs in the future). A larger committee
(ChapCom for chapters) can advise here and give or take away approval
that a group is ready for that recognition. A separate committee may
be appropriate for Associations, and could directly handle giving and
taking away of inclusion on the roster of Associations; something the
Board could overrule after the fact in rare cases.

If conflicts become an issue, we can revisit that question then.
(ChapCom handles certain conflicts now, in guiding the development of
new chapters.)

SJ

[Lodewijk]

<snip> lots of interesting points </snip>

Post by Galileo Vidoni
<nowiki>*</nowiki> A possible model would be for chapters in the region
where these partners operate to offer the possibility to donate a

percentage

Post by Galileo Vidoni
of the money to support these groups' activities --what would obviously

need

Post by Galileo Vidoni
fundraising agreements between chapters and partner organizations. For
instance, people donating to WM Irak from Irak could have the option to
state that they want a percentage of their donation to support the

efforts

Post by Galileo Vidoni
of a partner organization focused on promoting Kurdish language

contents,

Post by Galileo Vidoni
should such an organization and WM Irak exist.

That is possible. Or there could be a great political and social
disagreement between a non-Kurdish "WM Iraq" and a "Kurdish Wikimedian
Organization", and they could refuse to share resources (even if they
had a nominal cooperation agreement to share information).

I am not sure if this is what you are suggesting, but to be totally clear: I
do not think that we should as a movement accept donations to be "not spent
on/in XXX" or accept that we have organizations in our movement that are on
bad terms together. To accept an organization just for non-kurdish Iraq is
going in a very very dangerous direction because it gives off a signal that
we treat it as a seperate country - which is a political standpoint I would
not like Wikimedia to take. That is independent of my personal opinion on
the matter, which is irrelevant here, but rather a general idea that
Wikimedia should be neutral on such political issues. The same goes for an
"ethnic Serbians chapter" etc - I would personally also not accept that as a
non-chapter association. But lets have this discussion on a real public
forum and let others participate!

So basically I think we should be moving forward - we have this draft now,
and I might not agree on every detail but it is most important that we get
it out there.

Best,

Lodewijk

[Theo10011]

<snip> lots of interesting points </snip>

Post by Galileo Vidoni
<nowiki>*</nowiki> A possible model would be for chapters in the region
where these partners operate to offer the possibility to donate a

percentage

Post by Galileo Vidoni
of the money to support these groups' activities --what would obviously

need

Post by Galileo Vidoni
fundraising agreements between chapters and partner organizations. For
instance, people donating to WM Irak from Irak could have the option to
state that they want a percentage of their donation to support the

efforts

Post by Galileo Vidoni
of a partner organization focused on promoting Kurdish language

contents,

Post by Galileo Vidoni
should such an organization and WM Irak exist.

That is possible. Or there could be a great political and social
disagreement between a non-Kurdish "WM Iraq" and a "Kurdish Wikimedian
Organization", and they could refuse to share resources (even if they
had a nominal cooperation agreement to share information).

I do not think that we should as a movement accept donations to be "not
spent on/in XXX" or accept that we have organizations in our movement that
are on bad terms together. To accept an organization just for non-kurdish
Iraq is going in a very very dangerous direction because it gives off a
signal that we treat it as a seperate country - which is a political
standpoint I would not like Wikimedia to take. That is independent of my
personal opinion on the matter, which is irrelevant here, but rather a
general idea that Wikimedia should be neutral on such political issues. The
same goes for an "ethnic Serbians chapter" etc - I would personally also not
accept that as a non-chapter association. But lets have this discussion on a
real public forum and let others participate!
So basically I think we should be moving forward - we have this draft now,
and I might not agree on every detail but it is most important that we get
it out there.
Best,
Lodewijk
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

I believe we are conflating two separate issues here. The example of WM iraq
and a Kurdish entity doesn't take into account the geo-political situation
surrounding ethnic groups in Iraq, a similar situation might exist in
Ethnic Serbian or even Catalan entity to a variable degree. Either way,
supporting one over the other would be making a stance that I agree no one
in the group would be willing to take.

So, the question becomes about fundraising, how one sub-national
organization can share funding from a national one. The solution suggested
earlier is giving an option for sub-national entities to opt-in to the
national fundraiser. Although this might seem like a simple solution, it
would bring a lot of issues associated with it. Chapters and national
entities would not like to receive funding with strings attached to it, the
sub-national entities might not have a good relation with the chapter and
would be placed directly under them in this hierarchy. There are a lot of
geo-political, social, legal issues with the sub-national entities. An
alternative solution would be using the foundation to bridge this gap as an
outside, completely unaffiliated entity for some of the sensitive issues.

Theo

[Samuel Klein]

Post by Theo10011

That is possible.  Or there could be a great political and social
disagreement between a non-Kurdish "WM Iraq" and a "Kurdish Wikimedian
Organization", and they could refuse to share resources (even if they
had a nominal cooperation agreement to share information).

I do not think that we should as a movement accept donations to be "not
spent on/in XXX" or accept that we have organizations in our movement that
are on bad terms together. To accept an organization just for non-kurdish Iraq

I believe we are conflating two separate issues here. The example of WM iraq
and a Kurdish entity doesn't take into account the geo-political situation
surrounding ethnic groups in Iraq, a similar situation might exist in Ethnic
Serbian or even Catalan entity to a variable degree. Either way, supporting
one over the other would be making a stance that I agree no one in the
group would be willing to take.

<

Post by Theo10011
Chapters and national entities would not like to receive funding with strings
attached to it, the sub-national [or non-geographical --sj] entities might not have a good
relation with the chapter and would be placed directly under them in this hierarchy.

<

Post by Theo10011
An alternative solution would be using the foundation to bridge this gap as an outside,
completely unaffiliated entity for some of the sensitive issues.

Theo captures my meaning. We may well have two organizations which,
on paper, are non-discriminatory and even have signed
mutual-collaboration agreements (for instance, if we require this of
groups operating in the same area or on the same topic), but which in
practice are at odds.

I do see the Foundation bridging this gap where it arises. Cultural
partner organizations have the advantage that they can collaborate
with and request grants from multiple chapters or groups, not only the
Foundation -- but the disadvantage that they cannot participate
directly in revenue-sharing fundraising. Of course they can also
fundraise and build a network of suporters in the traditional way --
through personal outreach and the media.

SJ

[Theo10011]

Post by Theo10011
I believe we are conflating two separate issues here. The example of WM
iraq and a Kurdish entity doesn't take into account the geo-political
situation surrounding ethnic groups in Iraq, a similar situation might exist
in Ethnic Serbian or even Catalan entity to a variable degree. Either way,
supporting one over the other would be making a stance that I agree no one
in the group would be willing to take.
So, the question becomes about fundraising, how one sub-national
organization can share funding from a national one. The solution suggested
earlier is giving an option for sub-national entities to opt-in to the
national fundraiser. Although this might seem like a simple solution, it
would bring a lot of issues associated with it. Chapters and national
entities would not like to receive funding with strings attached to it, the
sub-national entities might not have a good relation with the chapter and
would be placed directly under them in this hierarchy. There are a lot of
geo-political, social, legal issues with the sub-national entities. An
alternative solution would be using the foundation to bridge this gap as an
outside, completely unaffiliated entity for some of the sensitive issues.
Theo

Yes, I agree that the issue is a very sensitive one. It's precisely because
of that that the "partner organizations" idea has developed. We should
provide these groups who for one reason or another don't want to integrate
into a national/state-level organization with an alternative that enables
them to be recognized as an independent entity, and yet not a "national"
chapter, because we are not here to contravene the UN. We shouldn't attempt
to solve Spain's internal problems and we cannot declare Catalonia the 193rd
member state of the United Nations*, but we can offer "Catalan-minded
people" an alternative so that they can focus on what they want and do not
clash with the Spanish national chapter --because they are a different type
of organization, not chapter nor national.
Organizations who are not representing a state can't sign fundraising
agreements with WMF by themselves, and attempting to do so would be not only
a legal mess but a *serious* problem with Wikimedia chapters. Offering these
organizations the possibility to establish funding agreements with chapters
would enable them to have a source of money they otherwise simply wouldn't
have. They are not obliged to do so, but I guess they'll prefer such kind of
agreements --Gomà has even written one. If it is the chapter who refuses to
cooperate with relevant partners and there are no real reasons for such an
attitude the chapter would be going against its role and the ChapCom could
ultimately evaluate the situation.
Regarding WMF grants to partner organizations... Yes, but don't forget that
we have another trouble spot here. What if a partner organization and a
chapter request similar, if not overlapping, grants? What if it is that
chapter who is best suited to fund the partner organization's project and
not WMF? What if a chapter has some objection to do? We should discuss this
further in Berlin.
Best,
galio
* I know it's obvious, but have in mind that WMES has Catalan and
Catalan-speaking members and has organized events in Barcelona, i.e. it
already overlaps with the proposal for a independent Catalan entity. I say
this to insist in that we should consider that many "partner organizations"
will be politically motivated efforts and we can't do very much to prevent
it, but we can try to channel that into something that is ultimately
productive in light of our goals as a movement.

Thanks Galileo.

This is probably something to consider for later but my impression is there
is a whole spectrum of partner organizations in the movement. Having a
single heading might not be ideal for later, this issue probably might be
re-visited later on considering it would govern what kind of rights and
authorization an organization might have. For example, grouping cultural
groups, sub-national chapters and other such organization in a single
heading doesn't give a lot of room to maneuver.

I have proposed a Tier system for all organizations in the movement,
National chapters occupying the first tier and sub-national chapters the
second and so on. We can assign different levels of authorization each tier
entity would have, from trademark use to fundraising, most of it could be
governed by the Tier system.

As I said earlier, this probably might fall out of the scope of this
discussion, and since we're pressed for time, maybe it could be
re-considered at a later juncture.

Theo

[Galileo Vidoni]

Post by Theo10011

Post by Theo10011
I believe we are conflating two separate issues here. The example of WM
iraq and a Kurdish entity doesn't take into account the geo-political
situation surrounding ethnic groups in Iraq, a similar situation might exist
in Ethnic Serbian or even Catalan entity to a variable degree. Either way,
supporting one over the other would be making a stance that I agree no one
in the group would be willing to take.
So, the question becomes about fundraising, how one sub-national
organization can share funding from a national one. The solution suggested
earlier is giving an option for sub-national entities to opt-in to the
national fundraiser. Although this might seem like a simple solution, it
would bring a lot of issues associated with it. Chapters and national
entities would not like to receive funding with strings attached to it, the
sub-national entities might not have a good relation with the chapter and
would be placed directly under them in this hierarchy. There are a lot of
geo-political, social, legal issues with the sub-national entities. An
alternative solution would be using the foundation to bridge this gap as an
outside, completely unaffiliated entity for some of the sensitive issues.
Theo

Yes, I agree that the issue is a very sensitive one. It's precisely
because of that that the "partner organizations" idea has developed. We
should provide these groups who for one reason or another don't want to
integrate into a national/state-level organization with an alternative that
enables them to be recognized as an independent entity, and yet not a
"national" chapter, because we are not here to contravene the UN. We
shouldn't attempt to solve Spain's internal problems and we cannot declare
Catalonia the 193rd member state of the United Nations*, but we can offer
"Catalan-minded people" an alternative so that they can focus on what they
want and do not clash with the Spanish national chapter --because they are a
different type of organization, not chapter nor national.
Organizations who are not representing a state can't sign fundraising
agreements with WMF by themselves, and attempting to do so would be not only
a legal mess but a *serious* problem with Wikimedia chapters. Offering these
organizations the possibility to establish funding agreements with chapters
would enable them to have a source of money they otherwise simply wouldn't
have. They are not obliged to do so, but I guess they'll prefer such kind of
agreements --Gomà has even written one. If it is the chapter who refuses to
cooperate with relevant partners and there are no real reasons for such an
attitude the chapter would be going against its role and the ChapCom could
ultimately evaluate the situation.
Regarding WMF grants to partner organizations... Yes, but don't forget
that we have another trouble spot here. What if a partner organization and a
chapter request similar, if not overlapping, grants? What if it is that
chapter who is best suited to fund the partner organization's project and
not WMF? What if a chapter has some objection to do? We should discuss this
further in Berlin.
Best,
galio
* I know it's obvious, but have in mind that WMES has Catalan and
Catalan-speaking members and has organized events in Barcelona, i.e. it
already overlaps with the proposal for a independent Catalan entity. I say
this to insist in that we should consider that many "partner organizations"
will be politically motivated efforts and we can't do very much to prevent
it, but we can try to channel that into something that is ultimately
productive in light of our goals as a movement.

Thanks Galileo.
This is probably something to consider for later but my impression is there
is a whole spectrum of partner organizations in the movement. Having a
single heading might not be ideal for later, this issue probably might be
re-visited later on considering it would govern what kind of rights and
authorization an organization might have. For example, grouping cultural
groups, sub-national chapters and other such organization in a single
heading doesn't give a lot of room to maneuver.
I have proposed a Tier system for all organizations in the movement,
National chapters occupying the first tier and sub-national chapters the
second and so on. We can assign different levels of authorization each tier
entity would have, from trademark use to fundraising, most of it could be
governed by the Tier system.
As I said earlier, this probably might fall out of the scope of this
discussion, and since we're pressed for time, maybe it could be
re-considered at a later juncture.
Theo

Thanks for your input :). The proposal about having an official tier system
is really interesting, BTW, and maybe a good solution to the horizontality
vs. hierarchy discussion.

I'll insist with some points about the Frankfurt notes because I know this
is by nature a twisted topic where every word matters.

Subnational chapters wouldn't be grouped with cultural organizations, only
the latter would be considered Wikimedia partners. Subnational chapters,
according to what we discussed in Frankfurt, are a specific type of chapter
that can develop in a country/territory where there is for the moment no
national chapter.

Imagine, for instance, that WMES didn't exist and a group formed a
subnational chapter corresponding to the Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalan
autonomous community within the Spanish state). That would have been OK, as
WM-NYC is. If the national chapter precedes the effort to establish a
subnational one, then we would call it a section of the corresponding
chapter --and it would be an internal matter of the said national chapter.

The problem here is that the proposal for a Catalan "chapter" has always
expected some sort of representativity/jurisdiction over any place where
Catalan is spoken: south of France, the Generalitat de Catalunya, the
Generalitat Valenciana (that's another autonomous community, that Catalan
separatists consider part of Catalonia, a notion that Valencian regionalists
reject), the Balearic Islands, an isolate city in Italy and so on. On the
other hand, their declared goal is to promote Catalan-speaking contents and
WM projects, unlike a national chapter is supposed to do. Because of these
two substantial differences they could never be considered a proposal for a
subnational chapter. What's more, the people behind the WMCAT proposal don't
consider Catalonia to be part of Spain.

These people have a clear political goal and identity, BUT most of them are
active Wikimedians and they do plenty of outreach, GLAM, PR and other
activities (as long as it is in Catalan or regarding Catalan Wikipedia) that
I think are frankly positive. Can we offer them a national/subnational
chapter going (potentially) against Spanish law, against the Spanish chapter
(who does have Catalan members, I insist, though not of the separatist side)
and the state of the art in international relations? I think not. But we can
look for another type of entity, without the universal goals and territorial
representation that chapters embody, that can provide these people with a
good amount of tools to pursue the positive side of their activism.

"Want to promote everything Catalan? Look, we can consider you a partner
organization for the promotion of Catalan! That doesn't mean you are the
exclusive representative of the Catalan soul and spirit, though --you are
there to promote Catalan culture, the Spanish chapter is there to promote
all of Wikimedia projects in all of the Spanish state and to interact with
Spanish public and private institutions, which of course include the Catalan
ones. The movement is expecting WMF, Wikimedia Spain and any other directly
related chapter to support you and to help funding your projects."

In fact, there can be groups who just look for a structure to promote an
international minority language and who would need the Wikimedia movement to
provide them, for the most part, with project grants and some possibility to
use the trademarks. Their proposal doesn't follow a
national/state/territorial criterion nor has to do with promoting all of the
Wikimedia projects in that territory or with supporting the Wikimedia
community within that territory, because there is no such territory. If we
are to talk about territory, we must stick to recognized national and
subnational state boundaries. Otherwise we would be playing high politics
and we would be creating far greater problems that those we are trying to
solve.

So, to sum it up, I'd say that what we discussed in Frankfurt about partner
organizations would be what you call cultural groups --having in mind, of
course, that what the Catalans indeed are, at least looking at their public
side, is a cultural group. Subnational chapters are, as I see it, a
different thing.

Best,
galio

[Theo10011]

Post by Galileo Vidoni

Post by Theo10011

Post by Theo10011
I believe we are conflating two separate issues here. The example of WM
iraq and a Kurdish entity doesn't take into account the geo-political
situation surrounding ethnic groups in Iraq, a similar situation might exist
in Ethnic Serbian or even Catalan entity to a variable degree. Either way,
supporting one over the other would be making a stance that I agree no one
in the group would be willing to take.
So, the question becomes about fundraising, how one sub-national
organization can share funding from a national one. The solution suggested
earlier is giving an option for sub-national entities to opt-in to the
national fundraiser. Although this might seem like a simple solution, it
would bring a lot of issues associated with it. Chapters and national
entities would not like to receive funding with strings attached to it, the
sub-national entities might not have a good relation with the chapter and
would be placed directly under them in this hierarchy. There are a lot of
geo-political, social, legal issues with the sub-national entities. An
alternative solution would be using the foundation to bridge this gap as an
outside, completely unaffiliated entity for some of the sensitive issues.
Theo

Yes, I agree that the issue is a very sensitive one. It's precisely
because of that that the "partner organizations" idea has developed. We
should provide these groups who for one reason or another don't want to
integrate into a national/state-level organization with an alternative that
enables them to be recognized as an independent entity, and yet not a
"national" chapter, because we are not here to contravene the UN. We
shouldn't attempt to solve Spain's internal problems and we cannot declare
Catalonia the 193rd member state of the United Nations*, but we can offer
"Catalan-minded people" an alternative so that they can focus on what they
want and do not clash with the Spanish national chapter --because they are a
different type of organization, not chapter nor national.
Organizations who are not representing a state can't sign fundraising
agreements with WMF by themselves, and attempting to do so would be not only
a legal mess but a *serious* problem with Wikimedia chapters. Offering these
organizations the possibility to establish funding agreements with chapters
would enable them to have a source of money they otherwise simply wouldn't
have. They are not obliged to do so, but I guess they'll prefer such kind of
agreements --Gomà has even written one. If it is the chapter who refuses to
cooperate with relevant partners and there are no real reasons for such an
attitude the chapter would be going against its role and the ChapCom could
ultimately evaluate the situation.
Regarding WMF grants to partner organizations... Yes, but don't forget
that we have another trouble spot here. What if a partner organization and a
chapter request similar, if not overlapping, grants? What if it is that
chapter who is best suited to fund the partner organization's project and
not WMF? What if a chapter has some objection to do? We should discuss this
further in Berlin.
Best,
galio
* I know it's obvious, but have in mind that WMES has Catalan and
Catalan-speaking members and has organized events in Barcelona, i.e. it
already overlaps with the proposal for a independent Catalan entity. I say
this to insist in that we should consider that many "partner organizations"
will be politically motivated efforts and we can't do very much to prevent
it, but we can try to channel that into something that is ultimately
productive in light of our goals as a movement.

Thanks Galileo.
This is probably something to consider for later but my impression is
there is a whole spectrum of partner organizations in the movement. Having a
single heading might not be ideal for later, this issue probably might be
re-visited later on considering it would govern what kind of rights and
authorization an organization might have. For example, grouping cultural
groups, sub-national chapters and other such organization in a single
heading doesn't give a lot of room to maneuver.
I have proposed a Tier system for all organizations in the movement,
National chapters occupying the first tier and sub-national chapters the
second and so on. We can assign different levels of authorization each tier
entity would have, from trademark use to fundraising, most of it could be
governed by the Tier system.
As I said earlier, this probably might fall out of the scope of this
discussion, and since we're pressed for time, maybe it could be
re-considered at a later juncture.
Theo

Thanks for your input :). The proposal about having an official tier system
is really interesting, BTW, and maybe a good solution to the horizontality
vs. hierarchy discussion.
I'll insist with some points about the Frankfurt notes because I know this
is by nature a twisted topic where every word matters.
Subnational chapters wouldn't be grouped with cultural organizations, only
the latter would be considered Wikimedia partners. Subnational chapters,
according to what we discussed in Frankfurt, are a specific type of chapter
that can develop in a country/territory where there is for the moment no
national chapter.
Imagine, for instance, that WMES didn't exist and a group formed a
subnational chapter corresponding to the Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalan
autonomous community within the Spanish state). That would have been OK, as
WM-NYC is. If the national chapter precedes the effort to establish a
subnational one, then we would call it a section of the corresponding
chapter --and it would be an internal matter of the said national chapter.
The problem here is that the proposal for a Catalan "chapter" has always
expected some sort of representativity/jurisdiction over any place where
Catalan is spoken: south of France, the Generalitat de Catalunya, the
Generalitat Valenciana (that's another autonomous community, that Catalan
separatists consider part of Catalonia, a notion that Valencian regionalists
reject), the Balearic Islands, an isolate city in Italy and so on. On the
other hand, their declared goal is to promote Catalan-speaking contents and
WM projects, unlike a national chapter is supposed to do. Because of these
two substantial differences they could never be considered a proposal for a
subnational chapter. What's more, the people behind the WMCAT proposal don't
consider Catalonia to be part of Spain.
These people have a clear political goal and identity, BUT most of them are
active Wikimedians and they do plenty of outreach, GLAM, PR and other
activities (as long as it is in Catalan or regarding Catalan Wikipedia) that
I think are frankly positive. Can we offer them a national/subnational
chapter going (potentially) against Spanish law, against the Spanish chapter
(who does have Catalan members, I insist, though not of the separatist side)
and the state of the art in international relations? I think not. But we can
look for another type of entity, without the universal goals and territorial
representation that chapters embody, that can provide these people with a
good amount of tools to pursue the positive side of their activism.
"Want to promote everything Catalan? Look, we can consider you a partner
organization for the promotion of Catalan! That doesn't mean you are the
exclusive representative of the Catalan soul and spirit, though --you are
there to promote Catalan culture, the Spanish chapter is there to promote
all of Wikimedia projects in all of the Spanish state and to interact with
Spanish public and private institutions, which of course include the Catalan
ones. The movement is expecting WMF, Wikimedia Spain and any other directly
related chapter to support you and to help funding your projects."
In fact, there can be groups who just look for a structure to promote an
international minority language and who would need the Wikimedia movement to
provide them, for the most part, with project grants and some possibility to
use the trademarks. Their proposal doesn't follow a
national/state/territorial criterion nor has to do with promoting all of the
Wikimedia projects in that territory or with supporting the Wikimedia
community within that territory, because there is no such territory. If we
are to talk about territory, we must stick to recognized national and
subnational state boundaries. Otherwise we would be playing high politics
and we would be creating far greater problems that those we are trying to
solve.
So, to sum it up, I'd say that what we discussed in Frankfurt about partner
organizations would be what you call cultural groups --having in mind, of
course, that what the Catalans indeed are, at least looking at their public
side, is a cultural group. Subnational chapters are, as I see it, a
different thing.
Best,
galio

Hi Galio

Thanks for the clarification, I must've missed the discussion about
sub-national chapters. Without going into the specifics of the Catalan
group, I thought we were considering sub-national chapters as separate
entities. We already have interest in organizing state level US chapters, we
have similar entities in Asia as well, I am wondering has the global context
been considered in this discussion. The group in Brazil is another example
of an informal entity that might be grouped into this.

I know that we are pressed for time and this discussion should probably be
done at length, so I'll refrain from pressing further on the issue.

You know we could always accommodate such entities as informal
chapter/groups which are the result of direct association with the projects-
like the Catalan even the Brazil group. They could be assigned a specific
tier below chapters with limited rights but again I digress, let's talk more
about this later.

Theo