Bishakha, may I copy these two paragraphs to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles/charter respectively http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles/summary/models where they could help to understand the board's questions on the drafts and hopefully will lead to some discussion?
Regards, Alice. On 18 December 2011 07:22, Bishakha Datta <[email protected]> wrote: > Board members asked some broader questions since there wasn't enough time to > go into the substance of it: > How specific does a charter need to be in order to be useful? > Is something that is very general useful enough? > How can one strike a balance between stating general principles and ensuring > they are worded tightly enough to mean something substantial? > How long should a charter be? While most trustees felt this should be tight > and concise, similar to what's being developed, a minority were in favour of > a much longer charter, upto 100 pages. > How will entities in the movement signal their acceptance of the charter? > No conclusions were reached on any of these - perhaps this is something for > the MR workgroup to consider. > > The proposed new models and the proposed affiliations committee were > discussed together. There was general support for the idea of having new > models. On the proposed models themselves, there were questions about the > specific 'names': partner orgs, informal associations, affiliates - it was > suggested that the names be reviewed again for precision and to ensure there > is no confusion about the type of group. For example, 'cultural groups' or > 'cultural > chapters'? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/summary/New_Models _______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
