Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia? The board's consensus is reflected in the decision. There's almost no public discussion of this outside of this specific thread on a mailing list (a grand total of two comments on the talk page of the FAQ, as I write), so I'm not sure which consensus you're speaking of.
Risker/Anne On 11 February 2014 12:59, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson <cindam...@gmail.com>wrote: > Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly > hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem > statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of > these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In > the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented? > If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were > disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about > progress and benefit the movement on a global basis? > > Best regards, > > Cynthia Ashley-Nelson > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < > jdevre...@wikimedia.org > > wrote: > > > Dear Frederic, > > > > > > On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz <sch...@mathgen.ch> wrote: > > > > > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote: > > > > > > Hi Phoebe, > > > > > > thanks for your answer ! > > > > > >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have > > >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic > organization. > > >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the > group > > >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to > > do > > >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they > > will > > >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove > > that > > >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's > the > > >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm > > concerned). > > > > > > What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the > > > actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track > > > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have > bylaws". > > > > > > What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic > track > > > record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated > > > two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external > > > funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind > > > of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic > > > organization". > > > > > > How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ? > > > > I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this > > impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track > record > > is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having > > bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good > > indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation. > > > > > > > >>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not > > endorsed > > >>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the > > >>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ? > > > > > > I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I > > > don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the > > > discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever > > > amount of discussion we have) and not before. > > > > Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it > > should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself > > (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the > > recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there > is > > now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic > organisation, > > which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice > > brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will > > help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters > > and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance > responsibility. > > > > For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC > > into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were > really > > the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both > > committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which > > was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which > > were provided by the Affcom and FDC). > > > > <SNIP> > > > > >> > > >> thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us > > know. > > >> We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us > > all > > >> on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups. > > > > > > The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this > > > proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the > > > community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get > > > exceptions. > > > > Hmmm.... I would say that > > 1) We made a decision in which we took several factors into account > > 2) We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have > > taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is > > the case. > > > > would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback about > > the decision's impact in specific cases. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision > > > beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing > > > ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize > > > yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it is > > > bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of the > > > movement ?") > > > > I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What concerns > > me (and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural tendency > > to incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic > > organisation even if there is no real track record or a good reason to > want > > to do so (especially since the revised trademark policy gives user groups > > much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters and Thematic > > organisations are an essential part of the movement and we would like > each > > and every one to succeed in furthering the goals of the movement as a > > whole. Asking these groups to be a user group for the first two years > while > > doing programmatic work really gives a good indication of the ability of > > the "future chapter/thematic organisation" to succeed. > > > > We also reference the strategic planning which is due to start this > > summer. One of the things we really have to solve is the > > roles/responsibilities/privileges of each player in the movement. The > basic > > answer to the questions: > > > > 1) What are our long term goals > > 2) Who is best positioned to achieve these goals > > > > should lead to a "who does what" picture of the movement (and maybe just > > as important "who will stop doing what"), and it is on the basis of this > > picture and the underlying goals that we should create and fund different > > players in the movement. I would argue that at this time the picture is > not > > as clear as it should be before committing the resources we currently > > commit to it. > > > > (just as a small note: when I talk about movement I mean the range from > > the individual volunteer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself) > > > > > > > > As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's > > > email: this decision completely ignores international cultural > > > differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in > > > general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the > > > group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise > > > your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and > > > bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something that > > > can not be decided globally. > > > > This is true. But to be clear, its not the possible "bureaucratic" aspect > > which concerns us greatly (as I mentioned above). > > > > > > > > > > Frédéric > > > > Regards > > > > Jan-Bart de Vreede > > Chair Board of Trustees > > Wikimedia Foundation > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > Wikimediaemail@example.com > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Cynthia Ashley-Nelson > "Yes. *Her again.*" > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>