Hi Theo, No dia 27 de Fevereiro de 2012 13:46, Theo10011 <[email protected]>escreveu:
> So just to reiterate, we are finalizing the recognition model for other > entities, not only before the meeting, but now without the majority of > the participants? > > ChapCom was proposed as the entity for recognition a month ago without > prior discussion, at the time, it was suggested that it would be discussed > within the group, and now it is being suggested, it is better to work with > only those that are incidentally there. > Chapcom as this entity has been mentioned earlier to be honest - but yes, not in any great detail because we consciously avoided that decision. I think the most relevant body here to ask would be chapcom. However considering there will be a major turnover in chapcom in a matter of weeks, I think that it is not unreasonable not to expect a clear opinion of those involved there. I do agree that these questions do deserve a larger stage indeed though. > > I'm not sure what is going on here. Issues about donor money and > responsibility seem a bit unaligned with the realities. This group is > discussing some major changes - a recognition model for non-chapters, a > council, what roles would chapters and the foundation occupy, and so on. > These recommendations might have a large impact on the future of not just > chapters but other entities. I would think this is actually a much more > worthwhile use of donor fund, than several other ongoing projects. I > thought the lack of physical meetings was one of the main reason why > activity within the group stalled. > Lets take a step back here. The model for non-chapters is something that ought to be discussed indeed. The fact that such model is needed seems to meet broad agreement - but the many details require public discussion. Lets recognize that and move on there. The council I have heard in many shapes. One was the chapters council - reality caught up with us there. At the same time there are a few more councils being invented here and there (one of them by the community department a few weeks ago) so I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to wait with any broader community council a bit and discuss it in depth at the appropriate stage: WIkimania. The roles to take up indeed seem to be important - but I have the feeling also there reality caught up once again. In Paris many of these discussions were had and I don't remember a significant portion of our members being present there (no matter the reason, just stating the fact). In my experience the activity stalled because we basically couldn't do our work because at the same time there were too many heated discussions already going on, and things moved faster than we could keep up with. At the same time we failed at most extent in involving people from the wider movement outside the few in this group in the discussions. > > Lodewijk, I can't help but think, that not discussing it or reaching a > consensus within the group first, and finalizing these, would also be met > with as much criticism, not just from outside, but from the participants > themselves. > > I indeed think that the time for extensive internal discussions within our group should be over. We keep discussing internally and not moving on at the same time. Let's cut our losses, finalize what we have, write down what we don't have and pass that on. Then I hope that Harel will clear enough space in the schedule for the specific topics that need more discussion, and that we will be able to move things forth there in a broader circle. The major downside is of course that once again the board seems to be unable to attend those sessions, so it will probably be a one-sided discussion. So I agree Theo: it ain't perfect. But I don't see how another physical MR meeting will resolve this, and I rather expect it to make things worse because it will at the same time rise suspicions, increase uneasyness for people to not be allowed in these discussions and for example hinder chapcom discussions. [...] As Anriudh said, I would really appreciate a direct answer on this soon. > Most of us have other commitments and jobs, if the funding and the need for > this meeting is in question, than please mention that next time someone > questions the recommendations. > > I agree with that :) Best, Lodewijk
_______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
