I think where we disagree is quite fundamental. I don't believe the approval should have anything to do with the bylaws of the organization. I believe the expectations should be made clear and compliance with those expectations should be tested. I could somewhat see the angle on the review for evaluating the chapters, but for a themed organization, this is really not the place to be interfering with how they incorporate. You want to be flexible allowing each group to do it their way while protecting the brand. In the case of Wikimedia Canada, we found it extremely frustrating to have external parties with no relevant experience in Canadian law picking away at our corporate bylaws. Bylaws are typically straight forward when starting a corporation, but the way this process is structured turns it into a complicated endeavor involving either high legal costs or many months wasted being subjected to amateur evaluation. If it is your intention to evaluate bylaws, at a minimum it should be done by a lawyer using the foundations legal contacts. As I stated before, I don't think this makes sense, but if you really feel you must micromanage it at that level, do it professionally. I apologize for my blunt tone, but I am not certain any lessons have been learned from our frustrating experience in the approval process.
On 20 June 2012 15:22, Bence Damokos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Alan Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Bence, why does the process discourage people from organizing for their >> purpose before they are approved? This part has always confused me. >> Anyone can engage in activities that support the Wikimedia movement, why >> would they be discouraged from organizing to execute activities for which >> they require formal registration? Maybe the process should outline what >> they get from this approval and make it clear that they are not permitted >> to use those things until approval has been completed. I fear the chapters >> committee may still be stepping over it's mandate to micromanage the >> founding of organizations where its real role should be to ensure >> organizations are compliant with the standards in order to get the rights >> and benefits of approval. > > If I understand your concern and questions correctly (excuse me if I > don't), the main reason that formal incorporation is discouraged before > approval by Chapcom is because it is more difficult to make any changes – > required either for compliance with the requirements or recommended simply > as best practices – after formal incorporation than before. Organizing > activities in itself, is actually encouraged. > > The main benefit of approval at this point is a long-term right to use the > name "Wikimedia" (including in their name) and to get funding (e.g. through > grants or the FDC);these benefits are granted fairly liberally on a short > term basis to everyone who requests it for a good purpose. > > Let me know if you have some suggestions on how to make this clearer? (The > step-by-step guides already include the "organize a pilot project" step > before approval that might be relevant here.) > > Micromanagement is certainly not our aim but we will try to be aware of > it in our daily activities to avoid it. (The linked new drafts contain the > same level of management by Chapcom as the documents governing chapters, so > this is something we have to assess and work on externally from these > documents.) > > Best regards, > Bence > >> >> >> On 20 June 2012 14:41, Bence Damokos <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am not sure if this list is still active, but I thought if there is >>> anyone left, they might be interested to help out. >>> >>> Currently, the Chapters/Affiliations Committee is considering the >>> procedural elements needed for processing applications for the new types of >>> affiliates, the actual substance of the process largely depend on the >>> requirements and definition we use. >>> >>> I would appreciate if you could take a look at a number of wiki pages I >>> have started [based on the similar pages for chapters and the conclusions >>> of this group] and provide feedback (which could range from "seems good" to >>> suggestions and actual edits for changes). My aim is not to restart any >>> debates that we have already concluded, rather to make sure that the >>> documents created reflect the final consensus and nothing is left out and >>> nothing controversial is added. >>> >>> - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations (if >>> anyone can create a new map that shows the Amical regions, that would be >>> appreciated, as well) >>> - >>> >>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_thematic_organization_creation_guide >>> - >>> >>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_thematic_organizations >>> - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Groups >>> - >>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Step-by-step_user_group_creation_guide >>> - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_user_groups >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Best, >>> Bence >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Movementroles mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> View Alan Walker's profile on LinkedIn >> [http://fastalan.com] >> > > -- View Alan Walker's profile on LinkedIn [http://fastalan.com]
_______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
