> On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote: >> >> Why would both "Associations" and "Affiliates" both need to use >> Wikimedia marks ? >> Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ?
As Andre says, Affiliates need permission to use the WMF marks on their own sites / banners, or to run cross-promotions for shared projects. (We might want to get reciprocal approval to use their marks in the same way) No-one needs trademarks to get grants, but a recognition process can be tied with a basic assessment that a group is working effectively. If done effectively, this would be a useful flag when applying for grants from the WMF, chapters, or external groups. >> I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten >> to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their "bylaws and >> mission aligned with Wikimedia's". I don't see this happening, any more than chapters might today be downgraded (or threatened) to "not chapters" by not having a chapter agreement renewed. Chapters as a diverse group are better at defining "Wikimedia mission alignment" than the Foundation -- the best recommendation I have seen so far for measuring mission alignment would involve a chapters council. (IMO this would be improved upon by a process involving project contributors as well) > But my immediate concern is that.... hummm.... I fail to really see the > difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to > better see what the difference is ? > > For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap.... would that rather be a > partner or an affiliate ? Likely an affiliate. The might become a partner if they were to request adoption by WMF, but they are not currently representing Wikimedia as a movement within the universe of maps. > Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? Likely a partner, as their focus is representing Wikimedia within catalan culture and community. > And if there is a chapter-to-be somewhere, already a legal entity but not > yet approved by a chapter, would that be a partner or an affiliate ? Neither, it would likely be an Association. (It would not qualify as a partner if it was focused on a geography, it would not qualify as an affiliate if it did no work other than wikimedia projects) As Thomas Dalton notes, Chapters are crisply defined, without overlap, and closely tied to existing legal, political, social and financial structure in the world (which tend to follow national boundaries). This makes them an excellent long-term network for supporting efforts throughout the world. Partners would be more variably defined, though each be linked to their own circles of knowledge or culture. Millosh writes: > Not all of us share position that two Wikimedian groups can cooperate > just if both are symbolically linked to the state structure. That's > ideologically biased and, unfortunately, not biased by our common > ideology, free access to knowledge. > > While associations and affiliates don't sound as in-movement > organizations, partner organizations and chapters sound like it. Yes, this was the original idea: Partners and chapters would both be in-movement organizations, not identical but both shaping our identity and representing Wikimedia to the world. SJ [ Many of these questions and answers are being consolidated on the Meta talk page. ] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
