I don't think we need to formalize these kinds of groups at all, unless they want the same kind of official support that chapters get. The core of Wikimedia is self-organizing, ad hoc groups, so what possible purpose would it serve to build additional rules and conventions around them if they're not asking for it already?
It's not that I think it's a definitively bad idea. I just don't think we should create more organizational overheard unless we really need to. At the moment, I don't see anyone asking for this kind of thing. Steven On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Anders Wennersten < [email protected]> wrote: > I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some > definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official > recognition and having some rights being formally regulated . > > I would suggest we > 1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..", > "Associates of ..." or something like that. > 2. start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new > entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal > for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a > chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new > entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in > these cases.. > > Anders Wennersten > treasurer Wikimedia Sverige > Member of ChapCom > > > > > Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking > > at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with. > > (What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was > > approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since > > decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time. > > However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific > > case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage > > grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into > > the chapters framework? > > > > There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups > > that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite > > the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to > > organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian > > situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better > > sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe > > there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and > > continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and > > formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to > > have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after > > it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm > > wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this > > as distinct from Wikimedia Polska). > > > > Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this > > something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in? > > How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized > > groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and > > compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations? > > > > --Michael Snow > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
