On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 04:11, Pharos<pharosofalexand...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think a possible solution for this kind of thing might be "Working > Groups", each carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer" > who has a time-limited charter to lead such a group. > > The issue here is that when dealing with a small unorganized group, > really the only practicable way to maintain communication and > accountability is through an individual. > > This would be the type of structure that from my experience would work > best with embryonic local efforts crystallizing in something like a > "Wikimedia Working Group for Tennessee", and I could also see it > working with supra-local efforts like "Wikimedia Working Group for > Catalan".
The issue here is that, in the Catalan case for example, the effort is already beyond just a "working group". You have a group of people who are more than mature to have their own organisation and make it succesful. What they lack is "legitimity" under the Wikimedia banner in order to talk to potential donors who would support their efforts if they only had "the name". > > Of course, the "Working Group Organizer" can and should delegate > activities to other trusted persons, but the overall responsibility > (and the blame if things somehow go horribly wrong) is theirs. I find this idea interesting, it fits in the smaller "partnership scheme" which entails giving letters of recommandation or support for a specific group, as well as maybe in the "chapters to be" scheme. Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list email@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l