Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:07:15 +0100, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't comment Jan-Bart's wish, but I have comparable position toward usage of particular words: If email in my inbox begins with Dear Milos (especially in Serbian) by a person not so close to me, I would treat it as over-formal tone. (One of my friends sends such emails to trash automatically.) I would automatically have negative attitude toward that person. There are a couple of other wrong beginnings of email if someone wants my [positive] attention. Dear Sir (literally in Serbian Respected Mister) is worse than Dear Milos, for example. Now I am pretty sure I must have written Dear Milos on several occasions, since this is what I normally would write. I hope it was fine. Or may be these mails have gone to trash. I personally have my name misspelt so often that I do not care anymore. If people insist on misspelling it I try to remind tactfully. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a stupid direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ? I thought we were to discuss Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 . Just a gentle reminder ! :P Regards Tinu Cherian On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:07:15 +0100, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't comment Jan-Bart's wish, but I have comparable position toward usage of particular words: If email in my inbox begins with Dear Milos (especially in Serbian) by a person not so close to me, I would treat it as over-formal tone. (One of my friends sends such emails to trash automatically.) I would automatically have negative attitude toward that person. There are a couple of other wrong beginnings of email if someone wants my [positive] attention. Dear Sir (literally in Serbian Respected Mister) is worse than Dear Milos, for example. Now I am pretty sure I must have written Dear Milos on several occasions, since this is what I normally would write. I hope it was fine. Or may be these mails have gone to trash. I personally have my name misspelt so often that I do not care anymore. If people insist on misspelling it I try to remind tactfully. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:18:20 +0530, CherianTinu Abraham tinucher...@gmail.com wrote: Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a stupid direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ? I thought we were to discuss Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 . Just a gentle reminder ! :P Regards Tinu Cherian Apparently, somebody decided that internal-l is a more appropriate place to discuss Movement roles letter, and Meta should be used for suggestions, and thus what is left for foundation-l is whether it is appropriate to deliberately offend other posters. I left several suggestions on Meta couple of days ago, they did not generate much of discussion. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 18 February 2012 14:48, CherianTinu Abraham tinucher...@gmail.com wrote: Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a stupid direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ? I thought we were to discuss Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 . Just a gentle reminder ! :P I'm quite enjoying this thread... it makes a nice change from going round in circles as we have been doing for the last month or two. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
No I will not apologize for act according with my culture. If Mister de Vreede has a problem with people from different cultures he shouldn't be part of a international movement. (And besides if someone would complain about misspelling, the Russians, Arabs, Japanese and Indians should be the ones since no one here can even write their real names in the original languages) _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 16 February 2012 03:15, Abbas Mahmood abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Beria, You're behavior is simply unacceptable. Are you going to apologize to Jan-Bart or simply continue with your baseless justifications on why you are calling him this and not that? Abbas. Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:14:55 -0500 From: nawr...@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Gomà called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained. Everyone in Brazil calls me B (yah, just the first letter) and here is VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast than to offend anyone. I can call him Mister de Vreede if you all find this ok, but that would be even more condescending (In my country we only threat people we really dislike by their last name). _ *Béria Lima* Jan-Bart and others have asked that you call him Jan-Bart. What part of that is confusing? You can ascribe your first error to different custom; continuing to ignore his wishes is simply arrogant and offensive, which of course I'm sure is not your intent. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
From: berial...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:52:24 -0200 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 (And besides if someone would complain about misspelling, the Russians, Arabs, Japanese and Indians should be the ones since no one here can even write their real names in the original languages) No one? Really? My name is an Arabic name and even though I'm not an Arab, I can write Arabic names perfectly well. Your assumption is merely stereotypical. --Abbas. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: No I will not apologize for act according with my culture. If Mister de Vreede has a problem with people from different cultures he shouldn't be part of a international movement. (And besides if someone would complain about misspelling, the Russians, Arabs, Japanese and Indians should be the ones since no one here can even write their real names in the original languages) It's incredible that such a childish debate has to occur. I suggest that if you refuse to refrain from intentionally offending other list participants, your privilege to post should be revoked. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 17:52, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: No I will not apologize for act according with my culture. If Mister de Vreede has a problem with people from different cultures he shouldn't be part of a international movement. (And besides if someone would complain about misspelling, the Russians, Arabs, Japanese and Indians should be the ones since no one here can even write their real names in the original languages) While I sympathize with your position (if not derogatory, I think that any name is acceptable while it denominates the person clearly), you should accept it as-is. (At the other side, I don't think that cultural misunderstandings should be fixed by apologizing. Here. Beria simply doesn't understand where the problem is.) I wouldn't comment Jan-Bart's wish, but I have comparable position toward usage of particular words: If email in my inbox begins with Dear Milos (especially in Serbian) by a person not so close to me, I would treat it as over-formal tone. (One of my friends sends such emails to trash automatically.) I would automatically have negative attitude toward that person. There are a couple of other wrong beginnings of email if someone wants my [positive] attention. Dear Sir (literally in Serbian Respected Mister) is worse than Dear Milos, for example. But, particular rule has different meaning in particular circumstances. For example, if one French or American starts email with Dear Milos, I would treat it as their cultural characteristic and I wouldn't have such negative attitude as if I heard it from one Serbian. If I get it from you, Beria, I would ask you if everything is OK with you. If I get a genuine email from one person from Sub-Saharan Africa email with Dear Sir, I wouldn't complain about it, as I would assume that it's his or her best attempt to be polite. If I get it from you, I would think that your email account has been hijacked by spammers. Note that I don't care a lot about words and that I wouldn't complain, but just make my position toward the person which sent email to me. Some people, culturally or personally, have stronger emotions toward naming conventions. Which means that the safest method for using particular words in communication with someone is to ask that person. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Jan-Bart and others have asked that you call him Jan-Bart. What part of that is confusing? You can ascribe your first error to different custom; continuing to ignore his wishes is simply arrogant and offensive, which of course I'm sure is not your intent. In case of problem I may give you any freedom to mispell my name and my surname as many time you want, if this helps to stop here any further discussion around a name. I am experienced about that and I live already in a conflict of identity. I may offer myself like punchball of the mispelled name. Ilario aka Illario (mainly for German speakers) aka Ilarion aka Flavio aka Florio aka Ilaria aka Lario Valdelli aka Vandelli aka Baldelli aka Valdella aka Valdell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
You have not understood the difference between a discussion in Meta and the transformation of this discussion in an operational implementation in the organization. This proposal has a lot of bugs, it seems like a discussion made in front of the coffee machine. Formally your point of view is acceptable, but this solution cannot be implemented as is because your point of view remains hard to implement. I would be an inmate instead of a participant in Pindaric flights. Ilario On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jan, It is not a problem of lack of time or lack of communication channels. It is a problem of lack of participation of chapters and fear of change. These proposals have been in meta for months. [1] The answer to many of the questions raised here have been in meta for months. [2] The problem is that it is very difficult to reform a cemetery if you need the participation of inmates and even more if when you're about to decide then all of them suddenly resurrect to oppose. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement. Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began. So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion. Best Bishakha Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
this would be called: too much drama There is no life and death situation for the chapters here. See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization... Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: I am going to die for weeks on end. In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try to think in opportunities rather that not think at all. Jan-Bart On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote: Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement. Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began. So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion. Best Bishakha Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I will not put my faith in another great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded Committe. When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of how it will going to work and most important: How much real power they will have we can talk. Until there, is just you and me talking about philosophical situations. We can spend all day here, but isn't going to come to any result until we have the data. ... And quite frankly I have too much thing to do to engage in any meaningless talk. _ *Béria Lima* * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 15:34, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.orgwrote: this would be called: too much drama There is no life and death situation for the chapters here. See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization... Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: I am going to die for weeks on end. In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try to think in opportunities rather that not think at all. Jan-Bart On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote: Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement. Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began. So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion. Best Bishakha Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 15 feb. 2012, at 18:54, Béria Lima wrote: Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I will not put my faith in another great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded Committe. Ok, in that case, just wait until we have all solved this without you... When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of how it will going to work and most important: How much real power they will have we can talk. Ok, it might be too late for you to influence it at that point Until there, is just you and me talking about philosophical situations. We can spend all day here, but isn't going to come to any result until we have the data. Lets all come up with the best solution, we will refine it over de coming years and send you the data around 2015 :) ... And quite frankly I have too much thing to do to engage in any meaningless talk. _ I hate to say this: but you are doing quite well on the meaningless talk... (counting all your contributions to this topic on both internal and foundation). Yes: I am being confrontational (which I almost never am). EIther help think of something that will make this work or stop repeating that it will never work (because I get it, I really heard you the first X times) Jan-Bart *Béria Lima* * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 15:34, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.orgwrote: this would be called: too much drama There is no life and death situation for the chapters here. See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization... Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: I am going to die for weeks on end. In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try to think in opportunities rather that not think at all. Jan-Bart On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote: Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement. Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began. So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion. Best Bishakha Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Jan Provide me a link to work and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion and being condescending like you. Here we can't solve anything. _ *Béria Lima **Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 16:01, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 15 feb. 2012, at 18:54, Béria Lima wrote: Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I will not put my faith in another great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded Committe. Ok, in that case, just wait until we have all solved this without you... When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of how it will going to work and most important: How much real power they will have we can talk. Ok, it might be too late for you to influence it at that point Until there, is just you and me talking about philosophical situations. We can spend all day here, but isn't going to come to any result until we have the data. Lets all come up with the best solution, we will refine it over de coming years and send you the data around 2015 :) ... And quite frankly I have too much thing to do to engage in any meaningless talk. _ I hate to say this: but you are doing quite well on the meaningless talk... (counting all your contributions to this topic on both internal and foundation). Yes: I am being confrontational (which I almost never am). EIther help think of something that will make this work or stop repeating that it will never work (because I get it, I really heard you the first X times) Jan-Bart *Béria Lima* * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 15:34, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: this would be called: too much drama There is no life and death situation for the chapters here. See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization... Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: I am going to die for weeks on end. In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try to think in opportunities rather that not think at all. Jan-Bart On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote: Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement. Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began. So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion. Best Bishakha Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? Awaiting your and others' thoughts on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 15 feb. 2012, at 19:07, Béria Lima wrote: Jan Provide me a link to work and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion and being condescending like you. Actually that was not condescending (if anything: sarcasm?) A good example of condescending would be if you cannot be bothered to address someone by their proper name (say continually calling them Jan instead of Jan-Bart) even when several people have pointed out to you what the correct name is. Anyway, to end this thread: looking forward to your contributions on the relevant meta pages (for example: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/draft_Board_resolution) Jan-Bart Here we can't solve anything. _ *Béria Lima **Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 16:01, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 15 feb. 2012, at 18:54, Béria Lima wrote: Jan for the million time: Give me the parameters and we can discuss. I will not put my faith in another great-and-solver-of-all-Wikimedians-problems-but-not-yet-funded Committe. Ok, in that case, just wait until we have all solved this without you... When you have a clear way to choose people for this FDC, a clear way of how it will going to work and most important: How much real power they will have we can talk. Ok, it might be too late for you to influence it at that point Until there, is just you and me talking about philosophical situations. We can spend all day here, but isn't going to come to any result until we have the data. Lets all come up with the best solution, we will refine it over de coming years and send you the data around 2015 :) ... And quite frankly I have too much thing to do to engage in any meaningless talk. _ I hate to say this: but you are doing quite well on the meaningless talk... (counting all your contributions to this topic on both internal and foundation). Yes: I am being confrontational (which I almost never am). EIther help think of something that will make this work or stop repeating that it will never work (because I get it, I really heard you the first X times) Jan-Bart *Béria Lima* * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 15:34, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: this would be called: too much drama There is no life and death situation for the chapters here. See my earlier mails for ways of getting to a sustainable organization... Secondly: When faced with a life or death situation, most people try to trick death and stay alive.. most don't repeat: I am going to die for weeks on end. In short: Come up with conditions that can make this work for you, try to think in opportunities rather that not think at all. Jan-Bart On 15 feb. 2012, at 14:47, Béria Lima wrote: Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? You're after all deciding their lifes or death, can't we at least choose the way we are going to die? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 05:30, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement. Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began. So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion. Best Bishakha Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
I had wanted to keep out of this, but this is the third or fourth time that Jan-Bart has been referred to as Jan. It was an understandable enough mistake to make the first time, but it's been pointed out enough now that that is no longer an excuse. We do not all have to be best of mates, but it is not unreasonable that we all should show some basic courtesy towards each other, and taking the time to get each other's names right would be a good start. If you feel that Jan-Bart is being condescending towards you, the best solution to that problem is not more condescension thrown back in the opposite direction. Cheers, Craig Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:07:23 -0200 From: B?ria Lima berial...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID: caa2xhjag+ummrkskhe82hatxkocycxm_tsmkb6nmn36mkdj...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Jan Provide me a link to work and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion and being condescending like you. Here we can't solve anything. _ *B?ria Lima ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Click in the tab History. You can see I already asked the question I've been questioning you and Jan there. sarcasmIf you can't do find a diff alone,/sarcasm I can help: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_modelsdiff=3441324oldid=3441316 _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 16:33, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? Awaiting your and others' thoughts on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Gomà called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained. Everyone in Brazil calls me B (yah, just the first letter) and here is VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast than to offend anyone. I can call him Mister de Vreede if you all find this ok, but that would be even more condescending (In my country we only threat people we really dislike by their last name). _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 23:09, Craig Franklin cr...@halo-17.net wrote: I had wanted to keep out of this, but this is the third or fourth time that Jan-Bart has been referred to as Jan. It was an understandable enough mistake to make the first time, but it's been pointed out enough now that that is no longer an excuse. We do not all have to be best of mates, but it is not unreasonable that we all should show some basic courtesy towards each other, and taking the time to get each other's names right would be a good start. If you feel that Jan-Bart is being condescending towards you, the best solution to that problem is not more condescension thrown back in the opposite direction. Cheers, Craig Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:07:23 -0200 From: B?ria Lima berial...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID: caa2xhjag+ummrkskhe82hatxkocycxm_tsmkb6nmn36mkdj...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Jan Provide me a link to work and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion and being condescending like you. Here we can't solve anything. _ *B?ria Lima ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Gomà called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained. Everyone in Brazil calls me B (yah, just the first letter) and here is VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast than to offend anyone. I can call him Mister de Vreede if you all find this ok, but that would be even more condescending (In my country we only threat people we really dislike by their last name). _ *Béria Lima* Jan-Bart and others have asked that you call him Jan-Bart. What part of that is confusing? You can ascribe your first error to different custom; continuing to ignore his wishes is simply arrogant and offensive, which of course I'm sure is not your intent. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Beria, You're behavior is simply unacceptable. Are you going to apologize to Jan-Bart or simply continue with your baseless justifications on why you are calling him this and not that? Abbas. Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:14:55 -0500 From: nawr...@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Gomà called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained. Everyone in Brazil calls me B (yah, just the first letter) and here is VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast than to offend anyone. I can call him Mister de Vreede if you all find this ok, but that would be even more condescending (In my country we only threat people we really dislike by their last name). _ *Béria Lima* Jan-Bart and others have asked that you call him Jan-Bart. What part of that is confusing? You can ascribe your first error to different custom; continuing to ignore his wishes is simply arrogant and offensive, which of course I'm sure is not your intent. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Hi Ziko, what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution). When wordings are the problem, we can probably fix that together - it is more important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard enough as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this point would bump into the same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole learning process all over again. So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible. best, Lodewijk No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlescreveu: Hello, I am afraid that the letter takes over the results of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!). The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed charter text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again. It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc. Kind regards Ziko --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Lodewijk, I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them - think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged roughness. And indeed, after Haifa we never neard from the group again, its members also did not take part in the discussion on the concerning meta talk page. Now, suddenly, the content of what you call very rough and a first phase is put on the table again. So I take it seriously and say what according to me must be said. Kind regards Ziko 2012/2/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: Hi Ziko, what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution). When wordings are the problem, we can probably fix that together - it is more important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard enough as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this point would bump into the same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole learning process all over again. So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible. best, Lodewijk No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlescreveu: Hello, I am afraid that the letter takes over the results of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!). The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed charter text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again. It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc. Kind regards Ziko --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Hi Ziko, if you're saying that the proposals should not get 'extra points' because they happen to come from a working group that did not function optimally (far from that - although it was definitely not useless either) I totally agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider its impact rather than its source. Best, Lodewijk No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 14:23, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlescreveu: Lodewijk, I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them - think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged roughness. And indeed, after Haifa we never neard from the group again, its members also did not take part in the discussion on the concerning meta talk page. Now, suddenly, the content of what you call very rough and a first phase is put on the table again. So I take it seriously and say what according to me must be said. Kind regards Ziko 2012/2/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: Hi Ziko, what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution). When wordings are the problem, we can probably fix that together - it is more important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard enough as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this point would bump into the same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole learning process all over again. So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible. best, Lodewijk No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlescreveu: Hello, I am afraid that the letter takes over the results of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!). The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed charter text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again. It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc. Kind regards Ziko --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
That's exactly what I did. Ziko 2012/2/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: agree. Just review the proposals on their own merits, and consider its impact rather than its source. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Hi Ziko and Lodewijk, Thank you for this feedback. I must say that I was not intimately involved in these recommendations, and my take was that this was something that came out of the MR workgroup, and we had actually waited too long to approve these recommendations. It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we need to increase the different kinds of organisation methods that we support. But lets take the time to discuss the content of this proposal. If that means we need to take an extra month, so be it (would be my personal opinion) and make sure that we end up with something that is a marked improvement on the current situation. And we might have to refine it in the coming years (as we will have to do with most of the things we are trying to settle at this point :) Thanks for your constructive feedback! Jan-Bart Op 14 feb. 2012, om 14:23 heeft Ziko van Dijk het volgende geschreven: Lodewijk, I remember the session in Haifa very well. The audience found it extremely difficult to understand the texts and do anything with them - think of the awkward silence when the group asked for feedback. It must be possible to criticize the texts in spite of their alleged roughness. And indeed, after Haifa we never neard from the group again, its members also did not take part in the discussion on the concerning meta talk page. Now, suddenly, the content of what you call very rough and a first phase is put on the table again. So I take it seriously and say what according to me must be said. Kind regards Ziko 2012/2/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: Hi Ziko, what was presented at Wikimania, was only supposed to be very rough and a first phase. The idea was to then continue the process further - somehow that never really happened. I agree there were and are quite some flaws in the design (for which I don't necessarily see an immediate solution). When wordings are the problem, we can probably fix that together - it is more important that we agree on the actual content - and that seems hard enough as it is. I'm afraid that a new group at this point would bump into the same problems as the old one did, and has to go through that whole learning process all over again. So yes, lets be critical, and constructive as much as possible. best, Lodewijk No dia 14 de Fevereiro de 2012 00:57, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlescreveu: Hello, I am afraid that the letter takes over the results of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!). The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed charter text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again. It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc. Kind regards Ziko --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
I agree with the idea to ask Chapters, but since the Board is pushing this to be read at 10 March. I have no freaking Idea why that date is so Important - I know you people don't wanna mess with my birthday the day before ;) - but we all can wait a bit more to do things rights, rather than do it in a rush. _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 14 February 2012 11:48, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Hi, everyone! Alec, I share your enthusiasm about wikimedia revolution, and I also have been nagging my chapter with the idea of the shared wikivalues. I ask everyone to take this in mind as a lighthouse in the gales. Governance is not an easy way, and for sure we're going to make some big mistakes in our way. It doesn't mather, the goal is so beautiful to fight for, that it deserves some frustating moments. :) Well, it's only my humble opinion, but I think that we all have deployed too soon the seminal idea of anthere, I mean, a wikicouncil. I think that this idea will overcome some inconvenients between different ways of engagging with Wikimedia movement and legitimacy. Some reasons alleged in meta are the increase in bureaucracy and therefore a slowing in decission making. But let me say that this idea has some advantages that overcome those minor problems: * Well, some decissions have to be slow and reflexive by their own (i.e long term strategics, movement structure). Those are the kind of decissions to be taken by the wikicouncil. *Wikicouncil is the only way of representation which is full legitimate and representative of a movement who has multiple ways of participation. *Wikicouncil will be a forum to put together the different ways of advocacy. *Wikicouncil shall not increase budget as it can take place simultaneously with Wikimania. I think that the roles of the multiple entities must be very clearified in order to avoid outreach confussions, and coordination must be mandatory to get WMF approvals. Under the proper coordination of agendas and messages, I think that there is nothing to worry, and even joint apparition of chapters and other movement forms will be reinforcing in terms of outreach activities. 2012/2/14 Alec Meta alecm...@gmail.com I'm happy to see the Partner Organization possibility being given serious consideration. I'm a longtime believer that organizations with Wikimedia values need to band together into some larger umbrella organizational structure. I hope this new framework will allow us to return to a more 'innovative' phase in our growth. Wikipedia is the beginning of our revolution, not the end. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlwrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement. Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began. So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion. Best Bishakha Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour mathias.dam...@laposte.net wrote: Why would both Associations and Affiliates both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Because they might feel a need to identify themselves as part of Wikimedia. Yes, there is much talk about use of Wikimedia trademarks here, but I think that that is because it is the major, if not only, legal consequence of association or affiliance. If an organization has no need for Wikimedia marks, the necessity of it being an associate or affiliate would be much less. Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ? What makes you think they do? -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
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 ? 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. Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept redondant with partner organizations. 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 ? Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? 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 ? One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters. But well Florence Le 13/02/2012 08:09, Ting Chen a écrit : The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community: The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process. We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March. Thanks, Ting. Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations == Expansion of movement affiliation models == In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement: *: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement. *: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia. == Recognizing new affiliation models == In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover: * recognizing all group models * mentoring chapters and partner organiations * reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation. This proposed charter and plan
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mathias Damour mathias.dam...@laposte.netwrote: 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 see new 'models' as a positive proposal to encourage and enable many more types of affiliations to take place - formal, informal, geographic, not defined by geography, thematic etc - rather than as a 'stick' to put down or threaten chapters. That's why I'm in favour of this. Personal view. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How would this benefit the movement? Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How would this benefit the movement? While I can't speak of direct harm or benefit for the movement, I would put some distinction between the recognition process. Chapters have a board and are open to membership, how partner organizations deal with this issue and their bylaws is still left open. Before we jump head-first into this, proper consideration has to be given about the liability and the vetting procedure for this. As it stands, the approval process seems identical between chapters and partners organizations, this is not a good thing. It might be advisable to give more time to the legal dept. and ChapCom to fully vet the paperwork as it currently does for chapters, since chapters also carry a higher liability and exposure for the movement, while partner organizations are relatively independent, whatever their underlying criteria might be. Partner organization status, if without a formal registration, can be approved directly by WMF. It can save a lot of time and effort, and limit a lot of exposure for the existing chapters, not to mention make the overall process of approving partner organizations, a simpler one. Chapters have to assimilate into an existing community of established chapters, their approval can only enforce and support the new entity. We also have to decide if we want all these future organizations bunched up together, or if they will have a tiered approach to their relationship. There's probably a better reason, but this was the one that came to me. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Thank you for sharing this, Ting. I think this is an excellent set of proposals with which to start a more structured discussion than we've currently had on this topic. I fail to see the attack on chapters that other people are talking about. There is a distinct difference between Chapters and Partner Organisations in that Chapters are non-overlapping (with each other - they will overlap with Partner Organisations). This makes them unique among Wikimedia organisations in that there will usually be a specific Chapter that is unambiguously responsible for a given activity, while there often won't be a single Partner Organisation that have undisputed jurisdiction (for want of a better word) over it. I don't see anything in this proposal to suggest that this unique nature of chapters will be degraded. There has been considerable discussion about whether non-chapter groups will be able to participate in things like the Chapter-selected WMF board seat selection process. There is nothing in the proposal regarding that, so I would be interested in hearing the thoughts from the board regarding that question. I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. One Chapter - One Vote is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others represent small geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like History be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very specific topic like Submarines?). It might make sense to let them participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't going to work. On 13 February 2012 07:09, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote: The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community: The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process. We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March. Thanks, Ting. Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations == Expansion of movement affiliation models == In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement: *: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement. *: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia. == Recognizing new affiliation models == In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 2/13/12 12:51 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.comwrote: One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How would this benefit the movement? Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set of partners (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money, technical support). These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or WMF. It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ? In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense. In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity. On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :) But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that all chapters be there. This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations, can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision making of who is part and who is not part of the network. One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity. I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main points to implement 1) a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters representants (some tweaks) 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do) 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be improved over time) Hope that unwrap the head :) Flo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. One Chapter - One Vote is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others represent small geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like History be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very specific topic like Submarines?). It might make sense to let them participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't going to work. The simplest solution is to remove the Chapters from their role in electing members of the Board. There will always be disparities between chapters - in funding, representation, organization, professionalism, activity, etc. The concept of Chapter elected Board seats will only become more fraught. Thomas' comment about the U.S. is a perfect harbinger of things to come - international balance of power concerns mixed with a smug insult predicated on ignorance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San Francisco... Marcos Tallés (aka Marctaltor) Secretario de Wikimedia España mar...@wikimedia.org.es tal_t...@yahoo.es (34) 658 395 060 www.wikimedia.org.es --- El lun, 13/2/12, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com escribió: De: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: lunes, 13 de febrero, 2012 15:03 I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. One Chapter - One Vote is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others represent small geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like History be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very specific topic like Submarines?). It might make sense to let them participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't going to work. The simplest solution is to remove the Chapters from their role in electing members of the Board. There will always be disparities between chapters - in funding, representation, organization, professionalism, activity, etc. The concept of Chapter elected Board seats will only become more fraught. Thomas' comment about the U.S. is a perfect harbinger of things to come - international balance of power concerns mixed with a smug insult predicated on ignorance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set of partners (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money, technical support). These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or WMF. It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ? In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense. In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity. On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :) But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that all chapters be there. This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations, can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision making of who is part and who is not part of the network. One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity. I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main points to implement 1) a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters representants (some tweaks) 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do) 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be improved over time) Hope that unwrap the head :) The sense of belonging and solidarity is undermined by the position that Wikimedia organization requires country behind itself. 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Hiya all, It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions we have talked about how we should try to engage volunteers and let them do what they are best at - I still stand behind that. That however also means that we should recognize that the chapters model will not work for every single person or group of persons. This does not necessarily have to correlate with a 'shift of power' or disengaging chapters - it *should* be about engaging more volunteers, and allowing them to do great work with the best tools available. So let us focus on that. I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF: 1) Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day 2) Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow into a chapter The group 1) will probably mainly be the case because of either legal reasons or because there is not enough critical mass yet. I don't think anyone disagrees we should give them the space they need. This includes for example Wikimedia Croatia, Kazachstan and Georgia. The group 2) will in my expectation consist of groups that are indeed more aligned along cultural ideas. To mind come Amical (as discussed) and Esperantists. Now this is where things apparently become complicated, because somehow things can get conflicting when they start to compete with chapters. There are a few things relevant here in the recognition process by X-committee: * What will be the rights will determine to large extent how high the threshold will be * If there is a geographical component (explicit or not) there should, imho, be a consultation with the relevant other organizations overlapping with that component. I don't know if it is realistic to go as far as a veto, but it should definitely be a very serious part of the process. This should probably be reciprocal - if a chapter is to be recognized other groups in that area should be consulted, too. * We should have clear to what extent trademarks and fundraising rights go - both for chapters and non-chapter organizations. * We have to remain very careful about political statements. I am personally a bit hesistant with recognizing any organization which is politically oriented. Hence, this analysis should also be part of the recognition process of any movement organization. To give an entirely obvious example: I would not feel comfortable if any organization would be founded based on ethnically oriented principles, or would be discriminating in its membership based on principles that would be considered illegal in most countries (even if it is not illegal in that specific country). Another obvious example: I would feel extremely uncomfortable if any of these organizations would only allow men to vote in their assemblies or if there are religious requirements. * In general I would like to find a way to ensure that relations are good between the organization and the communities and relevant other organizations. I doubt we ever can formalize that into a demand, but all efforts should go into this of course. Probably there are some more criteria which are currently already checked upon (although not formally in a checklist) by the recognition of chapters that should be part of this. I think it would be helpful if chapcom can tackle that issue in it's berlin meeting. Anyway, just some thoughts. As a final remark, I sincerely hope that we will not fall in the trap of building policies around a single case - but rather focus on the big picture and then afterwards test that picture on the single scenario. Amical is a complicated case, and it would be very easy to loose ourselves in who's at fault, the details and what solutions do not work in their case. Warmly, Lodewijk No dia 13 de Fevereiro de 2012 15:29, marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es escreveu: There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San Francisco... Marcos Tallés (aka Marctaltor) Secretario de Wikimedia España mar...@wikimedia.org.es tal_t...@yahoo.es (34) 658 395 060 www.wikimedia.org.es --- El lun, 13/2/12, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com escribió: De: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: lunes, 13 de febrero, 2012 15:03 I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. One Chapter - One Vote is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 15:58, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: It would be great if we can have this discussion without making sarcastic remarks like this - I know it is a sensitive topic, but I also know that we're in a suboptimal situation here right now. In the past discussions we have talked about how we should try to engage volunteers and let them do what they are best at - I still stand behind that. That however also means that we should recognize that the chapters model will not work for every single person or group of persons. This does not necessarily have to correlate with a 'shift of power' or disengaging chapters - it *should* be about engaging more volunteers, and allowing them to do great work with the best tools available. So let us focus on that. I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF: 1) Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day 2) Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow into a chapter The group 1) will probably mainly be the case because of either legal reasons or because there is not enough critical mass yet. I don't think anyone disagrees we should give them the space they need. This includes for example Wikimedia Croatia, Kazachstan and Georgia. The group 2) will in my expectation consist of groups that are indeed more aligned along cultural ideas. To mind come Amical (as discussed) and Esperantists. Now this is where things apparently become complicated, because somehow things can get conflicting when they start to compete with chapters. There are a few things relevant here in the recognition process by X-committee: * What will be the rights will determine to large extent how high the threshold will be * If there is a geographical component (explicit or not) there should, imho, be a consultation with the relevant other organizations overlapping with that component. I don't know if it is realistic to go as far as a veto, but it should definitely be a very serious part of the process. This should probably be reciprocal - if a chapter is to be recognized other groups in that area should be consulted, too. * We should have clear to what extent trademarks and fundraising rights go - both for chapters and non-chapter organizations. * We have to remain very careful about political statements. I am personally a bit hesistant with recognizing any organization which is politically oriented. Hence, this analysis should also be part of the recognition process of any movement organization. To give an entirely obvious example: I would not feel comfortable if any organization would be founded based on ethnically oriented principles, or would be discriminating in its membership based on principles that would be considered illegal in most countries (even if it is not illegal in that specific country). Another obvious example: I would feel extremely uncomfortable if any of these organizations would only allow men to vote in their assemblies or if there are religious requirements. * In general I would like to find a way to ensure that relations are good between the organization and the communities and relevant other organizations. I doubt we ever can formalize that into a demand, but all efforts should go into this of course. Probably there are some more criteria which are currently already checked upon (although not formally in a checklist) by the recognition of chapters that should be part of this. I think it would be helpful if chapcom can tackle that issue in it's berlin meeting. Anyway, just some thoughts. As a final remark, I sincerely hope that we will not fall in the trap of building policies around a single case - but rather focus on the big picture and then afterwards test that picture on the single scenario. Amical is a complicated case, and it would be very easy to loose ourselves in who's at fault, the details and what solutions do not work in their case. Yes. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Message du 13/02/12 15:59 De : Lodewijk I think there are two types of organizations within the Wikimedia movement relevant here besides the chapters and the WMF: 1) Organizations that will ideally grow into a chapter some day 2) Organizations that explicitely do not want to or cannot grow into a chapter I think that there is a 3) : Organizations that want to deal with the chapter of their country rather than with the WMF for contacts, advice and sometimes financial support for their actions. Mathias Damour Une messagerie gratuite, garantie à vie et des services en plus, ça vous tente ? Je crée ma boîte mail www.laposte.net ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 2/13/12 3:56 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com wrote: I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set of partners (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money, technical support). These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or WMF. It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ? In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense. In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity. On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :) But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that all chapters be there. This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations, can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision making of who is part and who is not part of the network. One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity. I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main points to implement 1) a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters representants (some tweaks) 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do) 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be improved over time) Hope that unwrap the head :) The sense of belonging and solidarity is undermined by the position that Wikimedia organization requires country behind itself. 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. Quite possibly. Well, I am not sure if I remember well the arguments exactly (those who do, please help) * we supported chapter creation covering a geographical area rather than not mostly because a legal entity ought to be linked to a nation legal system. Nation being in the larger sense. It really ought to be either a state (as in USA), or a country (such as France) or a larger but legal entity (such Europe) * I think we suggested that we should not have more than one legal entity over the same territory essentially because of 1) the fight it could create in terms of fundraising and 2) the confusion it would create in outsiders (journalists, politicans, etc.) about who should be contacted for what Well... with regards to fundraising, the fight is already there and it is likely that most chapters will no more be allowed through wikimedia projects websites. They could still fundraise through social media, their websites and so on. If donors can stand the confusion between giving to a chapter or to WMF, then they can probably stand the confusion between giving to a chapter and to a partner organization. So, this ground for disagreement is likely to decrease anyway. The other argument was about the contact. For those of you who were already around in 2004-2005, one of the big problems we had is that journalists were lost in our hierarchy (or absence thereof). Who should they be contacted ? Who had authority to speak in the name of ? Who could make a decision on
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 13 February 2012 14:29, marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es wrote: There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San Francisco... This is effectively how fundraising now works. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 17:48, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, I am not sure if I remember well the arguments exactly (those who do, please help) * we supported chapter creation covering a geographical area rather than not mostly because a legal entity ought to be linked to a nation legal system. Nation being in the larger sense. It really ought to be either a state (as in USA), or a country (such as France) or a larger but legal entity (such Europe) * I think we suggested that we should not have more than one legal entity over the same territory essentially because of 1) the fight it could create in terms of fundraising and 2) the confusion it would create in outsiders (journalists, politicans, etc.) about who should be contacted for what Well... with regards to fundraising, the fight is already there and it is likely that most chapters will no more be allowed through wikimedia projects websites. They could still fundraise through social media, their websites and so on. If donors can stand the confusion between giving to a chapter or to WMF, then they can probably stand the confusion between giving to a chapter and to a partner organization. So, this ground for disagreement is likely to decrease anyway. The other argument was about the contact. For those of you who were already around in 2004-2005, one of the big problems we had is that journalists were lost in our hierarchy (or absence thereof). Who should they be contacted ? Who had authority to speak in the name of ? Who could make a decision on behalf of ? I take it that in some country, journalists now have understood that they would have to live with the uncertainty. But that question stands. When a journalist wonders who he should contact, where will he turn ? When a teacher wonders which organization he should contact, where will he turn ? When a museum director wants to propose a partnership, who should he go to ? I take it that if chapters and organizations do have good relationships and share members, this issue will solve by itself. But if there are conflicts or at least a competition, the situation is bound to get to a total mess. I totally understand the interest of partners in that context. But if the roles, responsibilities and duties of chapters versus partners are not clarified, we might be heading to a serious mess ;) I expect to see all organizations on the same territory to cooperate with each other from the beginning. I am also sure that organizations which operate on the same territory will be distinctive enough to be easily recognized. I don't expect that ChapCom and Board would be insane enough to recognize Wikimedians in France as partner organization, besides Wikimedia France. And possible Esperantist Wikimedians based in France would be distinct enough from Wikimedia France. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 2/13/12 11:04 PM, Joan Goma wrote: From: Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID:jhar77$4kl$1...@dough.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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 ? 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. Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept redondant with partner organizations. I think you (and many other people expressing concerns about those new models) are too optimistic about them and too pessimistic about Chapters. I wish we had a lot of problems because there where lots of people wiling to join new chapters ans new models. I would be extremely happy to help unfolding that kind of mess. 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 ? I think nobody can give examples because there are not cases yet. But from my participation in movement roles group I understand that the differences come from 3 parameters: a)Registered organizations / Informal groups b)Geography focused / Non geography focused c)Their main goal is Wikimedia Projects / They have other goals that benefit us. Then the classification comes like this: 1)Chapters: Registered / Geography / Wikimedia 2)Partner Organizations: Registered / Non Geography / Wikimedia 3)Associations: Informal / Geography or not / Wikimedia 4)Affiliated: Registered / Geography or not / Other So in Associations we can have Chapters to be and Partner Organizations to be. And some may be Associations for ever not reaching the status of a registered entity if they don’t feel the need. (Perhaps the term Association is not the best and something like “Wiki-Group” would be better) :) Association in French means uncorporated non profit. Wikimedia France is an... association For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible. First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries, later they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter for Andorra, later they proposed a sub-national chapter in Spain. Now probably they can fit in the Partner Organization model. You know they are highly thankful to you because you find a place for them to participate in Wikilovemsonuments.[1] I think Partner Organization can be a solution for them like when you invented the therm “Local area” They were not interested in any name nor position in the list their only interest where participating in Wikilovesmonuments with the same tools and same freedom than any body else. They are not interested in any kind of exclusivity, they are not interested in the name “National Chapter”, their only interest is being able to support and promote the Catalan projects with the same tools and same freedom you have to promote French ones. I am surprised by your use of they [1] Before this change there was an edit war with people erasing their participation because they were not a chapter and others including them. Then Floence created a place for them and from then everybody was happy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWiki_Loves_Monuments_2011action=historysubmitdiff=49614457oldid=49607752 Indeed :) FLorence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Hello, I am afraid that the letter takes over the results of the MR group that where presented at Wikimania 2011. There nobody, as far as I remember, who was enthousiast about those results. My board colleague Marco, for example, was stunned that the MR group thought that the International Olympic Committee were a great model for us because of its transparency (!). The wordings were unsatisfying, and we couldn't make up much of the proposed charter text. On the talk page I later commented that the WMF should call for a new group. I would like to interpret this new letter as an invitation to think about entities and its names again. It would be nice if the expressions could be more self-explanitory, and if we had more information about what these new entities will be for. What problems will be solved by establishing them, what problems could emerge etc. Kind regards Ziko --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ --- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
I'm happy to see the Partner Organization possibility being given serious consideration. I'm a longtime believer that organizations with Wikimedia values need to band together into some larger umbrella organizational structure. I hope this new framework will allow us to return to a more 'innovative' phase in our growth. Wikipedia is the beginning of our revolution, not the end. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Why would both Associations and Affiliates both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ? 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. Le 13/02/2012 08:09, Ting Chen a écrit : The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community: The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process. We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March. Thanks, Ting. Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations == Expansion of movement affiliation models == In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement: *: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement. *: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia. == Recognizing new affiliation models == In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover: * recognizing all group models * mentoring chapters and partner organiations * reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation. This proposed charter and plan should be shared with the Board by 15 June, for approval by its July 2012 meeting. ;References: * [[wmf:Audit charter]] * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Scope]] * [[wmf:Resolution:Chapters committee/Rules of procedure]] -- Mathias Damour 49 rue Carnot 74000 Annecy 04 57 09 10 56 06 27 13 65 51 mathias.dam...@laposte.net ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
