Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Austin Hair wrote: Every chapter has unique considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter. Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with Austin completely. There can be subnational chapters - meaning that the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but they are not 'sub-chapters'. The New York City metropolitan area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area has 18.8 million people. This is slightly larger than the Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands at 16.4 million. The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter. It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully balanced. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: Austin Hair wrote: Every chapter has unique considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter. Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with Austin completely. There can be subnational chapters - meaning that the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but they are not 'sub-chapters'. The New York City metropolitan area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area has 18.8 million people. This is slightly larger than the Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands at 16.4 million. The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter. It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully balanced. Population isn't the only factor, of course, or even the most important one. Wikimedia France operates in a very different way from its next-door neighbor, Wikimedia Germany. Wikimedia Serbia is very different from Wikimedia Italy, and in fact only recently became Wikimedia Serbia after incorporating as Wikimedia Serbia and Croatia. Both Taiwan and Hong Kong enjoy special relationships with the People's Republic of China, and our chapters there have specific concerns not entirely unlike those of our new American chapter. Every chapter is different, but until we make chapters representative bodies and hold elections where certain chapters receive one vote and others receive 0.375 of a vote, we shouldn't be singling anyone out for that distinction. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Hello! Domas, that is an unfair characterization of my e-mails, which I do not believe you have read in full. Oh, I did read your emails :-) I think they are unfair characterization of our development work, which you definitely do not understand in full. But had you read my e-mails you would also know that I do not advocate enabling the extensions unmodified, but giving them proper consideration and refactoring the minimalist set of features that would be useful into something that is scalable. That was happening, that will happen in future, that is happening now, at one pace or another, depending on various other issues. That is, I want to discuss the how the process of adding new features to MediaWiki is broken, and how this has been a specific example. You seem to be living in the idea of process, we are a bit on other side here, more concentrated on productivity. Indeed, in development team if at least one person agrees with you, you usually have green light - we manage to trust people, and we do not want to build stupid obstacles to stop the progress of the project and the platform. Only very very bored people can be looking for formal processes to define formal specifications to find formal consensus. This community, which takes quite a bit of effort to communicate with, effort which I have not seen from the development team: [ Jimmy quote included ] You know, once upon a time, full community consultation was writing an email to wikipedia-l (thats where everyone subscribed :), and the three other guys would usually immediately agree with your modification and say Jimbo, that is a great idea! :) The general traffic is different, community is way bigger, developers are still same bunch of people, who have to accommodate everyone. Now it is a bit more complicated, with lots of different communities out there, the communities themselves partitioned in multiple subcommunities, people having way different interests, and different time investment. By telling you haven't seen any effort you are either blindly insulting people who are doing the work, or just prove the point, that whatever communication you're doing, you won't reach everyone (and certain people will come back later bitching - therefore, ultimate consensus is unachievable). By starting this discussion in foundation-l, rather than wikitech-l (where don't seem to be participating in too many discussions), indicates you didn't try too much of communications effort yourself (though, heh, finally I managed to match your face to the name ;-) Cheers, -- Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society. When a chapter like New York is allowed then there is in essence nothing to have another sub chapter in another country.. In the end when it is all about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid as a Dutch chapter right ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com Austin Hair wrote: Every chapter has unique considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter. Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with Austin completely. There can be subnational chapters - meaning that the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but they are not 'sub-chapters'. The New York City metropolitan area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area has 18.8 million people. This is slightly larger than the Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands at 16.4 million. The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter. It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully balanced. --Jimbo ___ 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] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Hoi. The Brion is not God. He and the other half gods, have sufficient enthusiasm for all the weird and wonderful stuff we throw at them. They even spend considerable effort on Semantic MediaWiki and Denny et al are the first to acknowledge this and to say that they provided valuable insights. It is not that they are not enthusiastic, it is that they have a life as well. They also have to take care of our first priority and that is to make sure that the show stays on the road. To get a sense of perspective, the Stanton perspective will take some 890.000 dollar. A large amount indeed but it will not bring all those things that we would like. The WMF is slowly but surely ramping up the professional organisation. This organisation will never bring all the things that I want not what you want. and certainly not all the things that the communit(y./ies) says (it/they) want(s). Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/19 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu Gerard, I'm not sure I understood the full context of your e-mail. There is only one thing stopping it from going live in my opinion - developer enthusiasm. I don't think thats how things are supposed to work. On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I think it is correct. There is also nothing in there stopping Semantic MediaWiki from going live. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/19 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu This community, which takes quite a bit of effort to communicate with, effort which I have not seen from the development team: Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by everybody in Wikipedia, in full consultation with the community consensus. -- Jimbo Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales I've been told by a volunteer developer in that this quote is irrelevant. I wonder how many people believe that is true. On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Brian, thanks for all your insights, bashing and vocal support of your pet ideas. I understand, that SMW is academically interesting concept (though there're contradicting ideas in academia too, suggesting natural language processing as an alternative, and this seems where currently research tries to go too), and it provides usability in niche cases (academic data crunching). I fail to see why you associate SMW with general usability we're trying to think about? Is that something we simple mortals cannot understand, or are you simply out of touch from reality? See, our project is special. a) We have mass collaboration at large b) We end up having mass collaboration on individual articles and topics c) We have mega-mass readership d) We have massive scope and depth And, oh well, we have to run software development to facilitate all that. As you may notice, the above list puts quite some huge constraints on what we can do. All our features end up being incremental, and even though in theory they are easy to revert, it is the mass collaboration that picks it up and moves to a stage where it is not that easy (and that happens everywhere, where lots of work is being done). So, you are attacking templates, which have helped to deal with nearly everything we do (and are tiny, compared to overall content they facilitate), and were part of incremental development of the site and where editing community was going. Of course, there are ways to make some of our template management way better (template catalogues, more visual editing of parameters, less special characters for casual editors), but they generally are how we imagine and do information management. Now, if you want to come up with academic attitudes, and start telling how ontology is important, and all the semantic meanings have to be highlighted, sure, go on, talk to community, they can do it without software support too - by normalizing templates, using templates for tagging relations, then use various external tools to build information overlays on top of that. Make us believe stuff like that has to be deployed by showing initiative in the communities, not by showing initiative by external parties. Once it comes to actual software engineering, we have quite limited resources, and quite important mandate and cause. We have to make sure, that readers will be able to read, editors will be able to edit, and foundation will still be able to support the project. We may not always try to be exceptionally perfect (Tim does ;-), but that is because we do not want to be too stressed either. So, when it comes to reader community, software
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society. When a chapter like New York is allowed then there is in essence nothing to have another sub chapter in another country.. In the end when it is all about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid as a Dutch chapter right ? Thanks, GerardM Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. On the other hand. A volunteers organization must not be a WMF recognized chapter. The WMF is appreciate of every voluntiers initiative and would like to help if we can and if it is meaningful. Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society. When a chapter like New York is allowed then there is in essence nothing to have another sub chapter in another country.. In the end when it is all about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid as a Dutch chapter right ? Thanks, GerardM Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. On the other hand. A volunteers organization must not be a WMF recognized chapter. The WMF is appreciate of every voluntiers initiative and would like to help if we can and if it is meaningful. Ting ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
Not at all. There's no reason that the national and subnational chapters have to perform the same functions. It's entirely possible that the national chapter can serve as an organizational and facilitating umbrella for subnational chapters. As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational chapter other than NY; location not the least of them. -Dan On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society. When a chapter like New York is allowed then there is in essence nothing to have another sub chapter in another country.. In the end when it is all about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid as a Dutch chapter right ? Thanks, GerardM Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. On the other hand. A volunteers organization must not be a WMF recognized chapter. The WMF is appreciate of every voluntiers initiative and would like to help if we can and if it is meaningful. Ting ___ 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 -- Dan Rosenthal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops. Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a sub chapter but a wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established somewhere else than USA, right. As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical? Greetings Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts content wherever you like. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com Not at all. There's no reason that the national and subnational chapters have to perform the same functions. It's entirely possible that the national chapter can serve as an organizational and facilitating umbrella for subnational chapters. As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational chapter other than NY; location not the least of them. -Dan On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, When the New York people get their chapter, they are part of the USA legal system. It makes sense imho opinion to have a NY chapter if this is necessary to organise things that require a legal setting. Things like charitable donations. If these aspects are not relevant, there is no real need to have a chapter. It is then more of a society. When a chapter like New York is allowed then there is in essence nothing to have another sub chapter in another country.. In the end when it is all about community and community activity, an Amsterdam chapter is as valid as a Dutch chapter right ? Thanks, GerardM Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. On the other hand. A volunteers organization must not be a WMF recognized chapter. The WMF is appreciate of every voluntiers initiative and would like to help if we can and if it is meaningful. Ting ___ 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 -- Dan Rosenthal ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
Michael Snow wrote: Florence Devouard wrote: For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla). It is a chapter. ... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City So... the resolution stating that The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Sub-National Chapter should actually be read as The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Chapter ? J The division indicated by the sub in sub-national chapters is in the nation, not necessarily in the chapter. There is no chapter for Wikimedia NYC to be a subchapter of. People are welcome to use Wikimedia US-NYC (or NYC-US, it doesn't matter to me) where the designation of sub-national chapter is important, though. I know some guidelines circulated internally, but I do believe it should not only be internal. I went to the resolution authorizing its recognition as a sub-chapter (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City) and I found reference to Wikimedia Foundation: A Framework for Encouraging the Development of Sub-National Chapters, but no idea where to find this document. I believe I shared the FAQ on this list earlier, but I've taken a copy and put it on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters okay, I added the link to the wmf:local chapter page, so that everyone navigating from the resolution page to the local chapter page, can find the meta page. Ant --Michael Snow ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: As to your arguments that having a NY chapter obviates the need for other subnational US chapters, I disagree. There are plenty of reasons why a person outside of NY would want to become a member of a US subnational chapter other than NY; location not the least of them. He's not saying that it makes other subnational US chapters unnecessary, but that it makes a national US chapter (or, for that sake, a New York State chapter or a northeastern US chapter) impossible. -- 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. What do you mean by all the trimmings in this context? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, Is it like in Animal farm that all countries are equal but some are more equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will each subchapter have one as well ?? Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the lines of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing something? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops. Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a sub chapter but a wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established somewhere else than USA, right. As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical? Greetings Ting ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
I was wondering myself. I thought this information would be in the FAQ, but it is not. Two questions. First, the annual meeting. We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF. Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only one representant of all chapters come to the meeting. Needless to say, this limitation is going to largely damage the ability of this meeting to build anything. Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ? If that's the case, I suspect that we will soon have to abandon this annual meeting altogether, and will have to replace it by region meetings. Second, elections to board of trustees of WMF. WMF has given the opportunity to chapters to elect two members to the board. However, it is not clear to me if subchapters will be included or not. Has this been decided ? Or will chapters be offered the opportunity to decide that by themselves ? Ant Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, Is it like in Animal farm that all countries are equal but some are more equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will each subchapter have one as well ?? Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the lines of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing something? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops. Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a sub chapter but a wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established somewhere else than USA, right. As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical? Greetings Ting ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. There is no Belgium chapter and given their politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of the Dutch vereniging. Ting, it is nice that you do not see what countries have to do with chapters. One of the main points of chapters is that they represent the Wikimedia Foundation in a limited fashion and, that they take care of issues that need to be taken care off on a local level. They are things like fundraising and looking for a tax exempt status for gifts etc. When a chapter is nothing but a society, there is less need for an official connection with the WMF. The people in New York can have their own society, there is no need for them being a chapter and take care by necessity of these needs. If you say that a chapter is only a society and that this is all that counts, I do not understand why it is not permitted to have chapters covering the same space. Why not have an Amsterdam chapter if the people from Amsterdam think it a good idea ?? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, Is it like in Animal farm that all countries are equal but some are more equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will each subchapter have one as well ?? Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the lines of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing something? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops. Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a sub chapter but a wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established somewhere else than USA, right. As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical? Greetings Ting ___ 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 No, here is nothing with equal or not equal. See, I see the WikiMedia and its chapters as partners, as companions. WikiMedia as well as its chapters are organisations that developed out of the community and work with the community. A chapter may or may not have the same area as a country. There are many reason that it may have happend as such or not. As of the voting you mentioned. Voting for what? The only thing I am aware of that probably would be voted is the selection of the chapters appointed board of trustees seat. I know that the chapters are working on this very hard, but I am not sure if they would actually vote on this matter. Sometime ago I read in one of the mailing lists that the chapters should work collaboratively with each other and create a consenses, not by battling with each other by voting for or against this or that candidate. I like this idea. But as I have said, the chapters are working on this and I am sure that they will present a good result. But, looking in the future. There may be at some point that there would be concern that say the Netherlands has only one chapter and one ballote while the USA may have let's say five chapters and five ballots. We had discussed this issue on our october board meeting and we think that if at some day this concern is raised, we can still decide to change the mode. To be honours, I don't see what has nations and countries to do with our chapters? There
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Guillaume Paumier wrote: Hello, [it might be useful to move this topic to a dedicated thread if it goes on] On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF. Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only one representant of all chapters come to the meeting. Needless to say, this limitation is going to largely damage the ability of this meeting to build anything. May I ask some arguments to support this statement? Sorry. There are two arguments in my sentence. Which one do you want support for ? The argument that there will be only one representant is something I think I read that in one of your document. I may be wrong. I can look for the information if necessary. But I understood number of representants will be strongly limited. Or the fact one representant will damage the ability of the meeting to build anything ? Well, yeah, pretty simple. First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will join this year Guillom ? Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end of the discussion, the representant may not vote because legally speaking, only the entire board can take a decision. Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to meet and exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements. If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time. Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the one person doing a lot of work at international level and with many relationships with many chapters. When only one person come, I think in many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters. And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice. In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting to be a small one, with max one representative (in which case, it will mostly be a sharing experiences time). Or if we want more a convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a agreement reaching time). Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ? Yes. As you've already been told, they're not sub-chapters, they're sub-national chapters. If that's the case, I suspect that we will soon have to abandon this annual meeting altogether, and will have to replace it by region meetings. Yes, and this was considered during last year's meeting postmortem. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hi Florence, First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will join this year Guillom ? I don't really see why it would be more difficult. If numbers increase, we have to change the format of some of the events during the meeting. We could, for example, have full assembly sessions with all chapter representatives combined with committee meetings/workshops of a smaller size where not every chapter is represented. The meeting would turn more into a sort of conference which, as regards efficiency, isn't a bad thing at all. Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end of the discussion, the representant may not vote because legally speaking, only the entire board can take a decision. I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to meet and exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements. If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time. On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter meeting had no mandate from their chapters to enter into any sort of agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting that binds the chapters that attend. Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the one person doing a lot of work at international level and with many relationships with many chapters. When only one person come, I think in many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters. And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice. I would find it ideal to have each chapter send two people. That way, there's some deliberation possible among representatives from chapters and less likelihood of scheduling conflicts during the meeting. In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting to be a small one, with max one representative (in which case, it will mostly be a sharing experiences time). Or if we want more a convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a agreement reaching time). If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can bring as many as they want. Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Sebastian Moleski wrote: Hi Florence, First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will join this year Guillom ? I don't really see why it would be more difficult. If numbers increase, we have to change the format of some of the events during the meeting. We could, for example, have full assembly sessions with all chapter representatives combined with committee meetings/workshops of a smaller size where not every chapter is represented. The meeting would turn more into a sort of conference which, as regards efficiency, isn't a bad thing at all. Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end of the discussion, the representant may not vote because legally speaking, only the entire board can take a decision. I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. This should be checked by a lawyer, but imho, that's not correct, at least in France. Of course, this would depend on which types of decisions. If the decisions were completely operational and if the chapter has an ED, and if the decision is within the range of the strategy defined by the board, it's entirely okay that the ED makes the decision. However, in most other cases, I do not think that's okay. The responsability of the organisation is in the hands of the entire board. Not one member. Even if the member receives the delegation to *vote* at the meeting, I believe the decision can be cancelled afterwards if the board is not in agreement. Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to meet and exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements. If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time. On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter meeting had no mandate from their chapters to enter into any sort of agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting that binds the chapters that attend. Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the one person doing a lot of work at international level and with many relationships with many chapters. When only one person come, I think in many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters. And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice. I would find it ideal to have each chapter send two people. That way, there's some deliberation possible among representatives from chapters and less likelihood of scheduling conflicts during the meeting. In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting to be a small one, with max one representative (in which case, it will mostly be a sharing experiences time). Or if we want more a convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a agreement reaching time). If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can bring as many as they want. Sorry, I meant open membership but within the board pool (and probably ED pool :-)). If 5/9 board members are present at the meeting, they constitute a quorum and their decision is *legal*. Of course, the chapter may have one or two votes within the entire group. Ant Sebastian ___ 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] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: What about text works which were licensed under CC-BY-SA but were released somewhere other than Wikipedia? Can these be incorporated into Wikipedia? How will their right to attribution be respected? Is this allowance of reference by history URL built in to CC-BY-SA, or is it specific to Wikipedia? The CC licenses give us a fair bit of room to move with regards to attribution, allowing for pseudonums, taking into account the medium, delegates (incl. publishing entities eg Wikipedia), etc. I also stumbled on this[1] in commons which is interesting in the context of the discussion about certain types of contribution (photographs) inexplicably requiring stronger attribution: Visible tags or watermarkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarkinginside images are strongly discouraged at Wikimedia Commons. So information like Mr. Foobar, May 2005, CC-BY-SA shall not be written directly in the image but in EXIF fields, which is technically even superior. The reasons are: - We don't tag our Wikipedia articles with our names in a prominent way inside the article text *in order to step behind the work and let it speak for itself*, the same applies to the images (stepping behind own work and thus reducing personal vanity is crucial for neutralityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV ). Cheers, Sam 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Manipulating_meta_data#Purpose_for_using_EXIF_at_Commons ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Just to look at this from another angle, what reasoning was there to limit the geographical extent of the new york chapter to the new york city metropolitan area. Why not the entire state of new york? Does having this NYC chapter prevent the existence of a chapter representing the whole state of new york? _ Choose the perfect PC or mobile phone for you http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/130777504/direct/01/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial nastiness Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as another USA (sub)-chapter have. What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ? How do you make commercial organisations split along our lines ? As I learn more about chapters, I come to my conclusion that they are a confused hodgepodge of conflicting ideas. The notion what the essence of a chapter is is no longer clear at all. I would really LOVE some clear structured text that explains the notion of the chapter and explains what its responsibilities are. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a good thing, and has support from the community, why not? There is no Belgium chapter and given their politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of the Dutch vereniging. And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany. And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational chapters. Ting, it is nice that you do not see what countries have to do with chapters. One of the main points of chapters is that they represent the Wikimedia Foundation in a limited fashion and, that they take care of issues that need to be taken care off on a local level. They are things like fundraising and looking for a tax exempt status for gifts etc. When a chapter is nothing but a society, there is less need for an official connection with the WMF. The people in New York can have their own society, there is no need for them being a chapter and take care by necessity of these needs. Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their area and this is also a good thing, why not? And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable. If you say that a chapter is only a society and that this is all that counts, I do not understand why it is not permitted to have chapters covering the same space. Why not have an Amsterdam chapter if the people from Amsterdam think it a good idea ?? The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and names. The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another. Greetings Ting ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote: It is interesting how the power distance thing is playing out here. :) I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. [snip] On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter meeting had no mandate from their chapters to enter into any sort of agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting that binds the chapters that attend. I tend to agree with you, but I believe you have to keep in mind many singularities within chapters. This, if it happens, would be a very big strech for some of the chapters, where decisions are made collectively all the time, and the decision is a product of consensus and debate, and can only with difficulties be handed to one person. Yes, I agree too. That's why I wrote it would be ideal to have two people. Make it a cultural particularity or a wiki-culture heritage, whatever, but I think that some chapters might have a very hard time appointing who they consider the right person to make decisions that could engage the chapter for a long term plan of any kind. If only because their strength lies in having very different individuals in their board and/or membership, with different ideas, which act as synergy when put together, but could lead to a standstill if left alone (think for an extreme example, the person mandated says yes and then is disavowed by the board/the members etc.). If the chapters each send two representatives and there's disagreement among the board, the mandate could also stipulate that they both have to agree to give a vote on behalf of the chapter. This obviously gets quite unwieldy with more than two representatives. I do believe it is something to consider. If decisions are made on a consensus basis, then maybe this does not have such an influence. As soon as you try and introduce some voting system or other, the balance might be heavily tipped one way and not reflect what would come out of a consensus, taking all particularities into consideration (which does not mean you have to accommodate them, but which does mean you have to look at them). Yes, this does open a few issues. It's something we should discuss in April. Perhaps it might be useful for the chapters represented there to formulate some common opinon on chapters or the chapter-foundation relationship. But then, take all of the above with a grain of salt, I'm French, and we French think we deserve our place in the sun ;-) Diversity in opinion and thought is what makes us strong :) Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial nastiness Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as another USA (sub)-chapter have. Yes, inside their own areas. What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ? Why, the WMF has enough things to do, and in my opinion can still do more. But what the WMF don't want to be is very clear it doesn't want to be a USA-chapter. How do you make commercial organisations split along our lines ? I don't quite understand this question. The german chapter for example had long doing commercials in Germany if you will. As I learn more about chapters, I come to my conclusion that they are a confused hodgepodge of conflicting ideas. The notion what the essence of a chapter is is no longer clear at all. I would really LOVE some clear structured text that explains the notion of the chapter and explains what its responsibilities are. Gerard, the world is not a unity (may I say thank Gods for that?). What works in Germany may not work in Taiwan, may not even work in France or the Netherlands. As someone had already pointed out in this thread, the french chapter is very different as the german. So, there would be NO clear definition of how a standard chapter should look like. The ChapCom has a set of criterias before it would recommend an organisation to the board as a chapter. That's it mainly. Greetings Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, When the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is because of a fear that a commercial organisation plays one chapter against another, I fail to agree that this is a good reason. Obviously chapters are involved in such negotiations, that is not the point. I am quite ok with chapters being different. What I fail to understand is what it is that chapters are expected to do. Let me sketch a scenario. A Dutch group wants their chapter only to be a society while another group wants to organise things engage in dialogue with archives, musea. These two visions are worlds apart. When you are unlucky you end up with a fight. When both groups can do their thing, there is no need for this. When the WMF prohibits two organisations, it will be a recurring fight. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, So the only reason why chapters cannot overlap is possible commercial nastiness Does the NYC have a license to negotiate as much as another USA (sub)-chapter have. Yes, inside their own areas. What is left for the Wikimedia Foundation itself ? Why, the WMF has enough things to do, and in my opinion can still do more. But what the WMF don't want to be is very clear it doesn't want to be a USA-chapter. How do you make commercial organisations split along our lines ? I don't quite understand this question. The german chapter for example had long doing commercials in Germany if you will. As I learn more about chapters, I come to my conclusion that they are a confused hodgepodge of conflicting ideas. The notion what the essence of a chapter is is no longer clear at all. I would really LOVE some clear structured text that explains the notion of the chapter and explains what its responsibilities are. Gerard, the world is not a unity (may I say thank Gods for that?). What works in Germany may not work in Taiwan, may not even work in France or the Netherlands. As someone had already pointed out in this thread, the french chapter is very different as the german. So, there would be NO clear definition of how a standard chapter should look like. The ChapCom has a set of criterias before it would recommend an organisation to the board as a chapter. That's it mainly. Greetings Ting ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
Ting Chen wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a good thing, and has support from the community, why not? There is no Belgium chapter and given their politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of the Dutch vereniging. And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany. And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational chapters. Ting, it is nice that you do not see what countries have to do with chapters. One of the main points of chapters is that they represent the Wikimedia Foundation in a limited fashion and, that they take care of issues that need to be taken care off on a local level. They are things like fundraising and looking for a tax exempt status for gifts etc. When a chapter is nothing but a society, there is less need for an official connection with the WMF. The people in New York can have their own society, there is no need for them being a chapter and take care by necessity of these needs. Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their area and this is also a good thing, why not? And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable. If you say that a chapter is only a society and that this is all that counts, I do not understand why it is not permitted to have chapters covering the same space. Why not have an Amsterdam chapter if the people from Amsterdam think it a good idea ?? The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and names. Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement. Afaik, only one chapter has. When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we can not negociate. Ant The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another. Greetings Ting ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
Florence Devouard wrote: Ting Chen wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a good thing, and has support from the community, why not? There is no Belgium chapter and given their politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of the Dutch vereniging. And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany. And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational chapters. Ting, it is nice that you do not see what countries have to do with chapters. One of the main points of chapters is that they represent the Wikimedia Foundation in a limited fashion and, that they take care of issues that need to be taken care off on a local level. They are things like fundraising and looking for a tax exempt status for gifts etc. When a chapter is nothing but a society, there is less need for an official connection with the WMF. The people in New York can have their own society, there is no need for them being a chapter and take care by necessity of these needs. Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their area and this is also a good thing, why not? And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable. If you say that a chapter is only a society and that this is all that counts, I do not understand why it is not permitted to have chapters covering the same space. Why not have an Amsterdam chapter if the people from Amsterdam think it a good idea ?? The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and names. Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement. Afaik, only one chapter has. When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we can not negociate. Ant The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another. Greetings Ting ___ 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 Hi Ant, yes, this is also very unconvenient for the foundation and this is the reason why the board want to talk to the chapter about the growth and maturity of the chapters. If we can help, we would like to help. We want that all chapters can do agreements and the foundations don't need to do them in these areas. We also hope that the chapters can talk with the museums and archives and organize academies and so on. We would like to see the chapters more active. Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, If the Wikimedia Foundations needs chapters that can act and will act, you do not want chapters that act only like societies. If you truly want active and responsible organisations you have to be clear about this need and assess the performance of chapters accordingly. I completely agree that each organisation is independent in what it does however the status of chapter should relate to its function. When a society does not perform as a chapter, you can still have good relations with them but should they have a claim to the title of chapter ??? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Florence Devouard wrote: Ting Chen wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a good thing, and has support from the community, why not? There is no Belgium chapter and given their politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of the Dutch vereniging. And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany. And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational chapters. Ting, it is nice that you do not see what countries have to do with chapters. One of the main points of chapters is that they represent the Wikimedia Foundation in a limited fashion and, that they take care of issues that need to be taken care off on a local level. They are things like fundraising and looking for a tax exempt status for gifts etc. When a chapter is nothing but a society, there is less need for an official connection with the WMF. The people in New York can have their own society, there is no need for them being a chapter and take care by necessity of these needs. Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their area and this is also a good thing, why not? And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable. If you say that a chapter is only a society and that this is all that counts, I do not understand why it is not permitted to have chapters covering the same space. Why not have an Amsterdam chapter if the people from Amsterdam think it a good idea ?? The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and names. Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement. Afaik, only one chapter has. When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we can not negociate. Ant The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another. Greetings Ting ___ 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 Hi Ant, yes, this is also very unconvenient for the foundation and this is the reason why the board want to talk to the chapter about the growth and maturity of the chapters. If we can help, we would like to help. We want that all chapters can do agreements and the foundations don't need to do them in these areas. We also hope that the chapters can talk with the museums and archives and organize academies and so on. We would like to see the chapters more active. Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some discussions in a binding way, in others only in an advisory/consultative manner. Correct. Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting with all chapters... :-( I don't quite follow. I suggested an exclusion by topic. So some decisions they will participate and vote, others they will not. It entirely depends on what authority they get from their board/chapter. Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only afford to send one? LOL. Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others are not ? Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak one that can not float over the general noise ? Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others are rather discreet and shy ? Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ? There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-) No need to belittle my point. I was talking about an approach to fairness that involves giving each chapter as fair a voice as is possible. Like above, some compromise needs to be made. Having each chapter choose two representatives is such a compromise. Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Sebastian Moleski wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. This should be checked by a lawyer, but imho, that's not correct, at least in France. Of course, this would depend on which types of decisions. If the decisions were completely operational and if the chapter has an ED, and if the decision is within the range of the strategy defined by the board, it's entirely okay that the ED makes the decision. This may indeed be different from legal system to legal system. German law allows the board to appoint individuals who can represent the chapter individually within a clearly defined subset of the board's authority. I don't know French law but this may be something articles of association/bylaws of your chapter may stipulate too. However, in most other cases, I do not think that's okay. The responsability of the organisation is in the hands of the entire board. Not one member. Even if the member receives the delegation to *vote* at the meeting, I believe the decision can be cancelled afterwards if the board is not in agreement. If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some discussions in a binding way, in others only in an advisory/consultative manner. Correct. Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting with all chapters... :-( If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can bring as many as they want. Sorry, I meant open membership but within the board pool (and probably ED pool :-)). If 5/9 board members are present at the meeting, they constitute a quorum and their decision is *legal*. Of course, the chapter may have one or two votes within the entire group. Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only afford to send one? LOL. Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others are not ? Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak one that can not float over the general noise ? Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others are rather discreet and shy ? Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ? There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-) Sebastian ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, If the Wikimedia Foundations needs chapters that can act and will act, you do not want chapters that act only like societies. If you truly want active and responsible organisations you have to be clear about this need and assess the performance of chapters accordingly. I completely agree that each organisation is independent in what it does however the status of chapter should relate to its function. When a society does not perform as a chapter, you can still have good relations with them but should they have a claim to the title of chapter ??? Thanks, GerardM Yes Gerard you are completely right. I was just going to answer your other mail. This is the reason why we check the bylaws, to see that they are in accordance with the goal and vision of the fundation. Greetings Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
[OT] On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:34, Sebastian Moleski seb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote: It is interesting how the power distance thing is playing out here. :) I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? For Germans, power distance [1] [2] is small, which means, for example, that it's easy for the employees to go to their boss and talk about things and make decisions on their own, it makes delegation easier. For the French, power distance is big, which means hierarchy is much stronger, and chain of command is more important, which makes delegation harder. Of course, there are millions of other factors coming into play at any given time. But I thought it was interesting to see yours and Florence's reaction on this. Delphine [1] http://www.geert-hofstede.com/ (scroll down the page) [2] and for a little self promotion: http://blog.notanendive.org/post/2008/07/25/Distance-to-power-somewhere-in-the-middle -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts content wherever you like. Thanks, Two answers to this question: 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share space, but we haven't had an issue like that and I can't imagine the benefit of doing it that way. 2) It is possible that as participation grows, maybe WMNYC could grow to become WMUSA over time. Maybe there are several sub-national chapters that combine together to form a single national chapter, or maybe the one chapter grows slowly to encompass more area. These are just speculative possibilities, but it's worth noting that sub-national chapters have these kinds of options. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having a chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative about this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons. Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the 50 states, and also has some afiliates in the colonies (France, Germany etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others. Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of an Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that Wikimedia accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we would have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of trouble. And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other organizations. Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving wrong ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New Yorkers, how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?) Some more questions: * NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a North Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be happy about and volontarily dissolve? * Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group of Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want three regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)? * Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own? * When the chapters are going to work together more than now, and are going to elect WMF board members: Will one chapter have one vote? Will there be 50 US chapters with 50 votes, and one French chapter with one vote? * Isn't it much easier for WMF to relate to a limited number of national chapters than with a potentially unlimited number of national, sub national, or super national chapters? It might have been better to consider the NYC chapter indeed as a sub chapter, a stand-in until there will be an US chapter. Kind regards Ziko 2009/1/19 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net I've been assembling my notes from last week's board meeting to pass along. The first set of items I have to report is business from the chapters committee. All of these resolutions have been posted on the foundation website. We approved two new chapters, and there's something special about each of the two. Wikimedia New York City is special because it's the first one recognized under the new sub-national chapter guidelines. And Wikimedia UK is special because it's the second version of that chapter. For the sake of formality - and nobody does formality better than the British, which has been part of the difficulty - we revoked the recognition of the first one, which is dissolved or in the process of dissolving. Anyway, welcome to both of the new chapters! Also, two resolutions relating to the chapters committee's membership and procedures were approved. One recognizes the current members and the other allows the committee to determine its own membership in the future. This allows them to keep their work going without waiting for the board to pass a resolution (the board reserves the ability to appoint and remove members and will still be informed of changes). --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts content wherever you like. Thanks, Two answers to this question: 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share space, but we haven't had an issue like that and I can't imagine the benefit of doing it that way. 2) It is possible that as participation grows, maybe WMNYC could grow to become WMUSA over time. Maybe there are several sub-national chapters that combine together to form a single national chapter, or maybe the one chapter grows slowly to encompass more area. These are just speculative possibilities, but it's worth noting that sub-national chapters have these kinds of options. 3) The various sub-national USA chapters could form a union/federation of chapters. They remain independent chapters, but have a structure in place to enable them to work together effectively. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Ziko van Dijk wrote: First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having a chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative about this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons. Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the 50 states, and also has some afiliates in the colonies (France, Germany etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others. Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of an Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that Wikimedia accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we would have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of trouble. And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other organizations. Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving wrong ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New Yorkers, how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?) Some more questions: * NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a North Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be happy about and volontarily dissolve? * Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group of Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want three regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)? * Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own? * When the chapters are going to work together more than now, and are going to elect WMF board members: Will one chapter have one vote? Will there be 50 US chapters with 50 votes, and one French chapter with one vote? * Isn't it much easier for WMF to relate to a limited number of national chapters than with a potentially unlimited number of national, sub national, or super national chapters? It might have been better to consider the NYC chapter indeed as a sub chapter, a stand-in until there will be an US chapter. Kind regards Ziko 2009/1/19 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net I've been assembling my notes from last week's board meeting to pass along. The first set of items I have to report is business from the chapters committee. All of these resolutions have been posted on the foundation website. We approved two new chapters, and there's something special about each of the two. Wikimedia New York City is special because it's the first one recognized under the new sub-national chapter guidelines. And Wikimedia UK is special because it's the second version of that chapter. For the sake of formality - and nobody does formality better than the British, which has been part of the difficulty - we revoked the recognition of the first one, which is dissolved or in the process of dissolving. Anyway, welcome to both of the new chapters! Also, two resolutions relating to the chapters committee's membership and procedures were approved. One recognizes the current members and the other allows the committee to determine its own membership in the future. This allows them to keep their work going without waiting for the board to pass a resolution (the board reserves the ability to appoint and remove members and will still be informed of changes). --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Hello Ziko, I think this is the wrong way to consider the chapters. The first sub-national chapter that we have is indeed Hongkong. Hongkong is undisputed a part of China, so it is a sub-national chapter and it is in no way an american sub-national chapter. And no, the foundation definitively don't want to be an american chapter. Thing is more praktical: If the new yorker wikimedians have the ability to organize themselves but there's no ability to organize an allamerican chapter, why should we lay stones on their way and prevent them doing so. And as in my reply to Gerard, if the community want, I really don't see problem why the netherland chapter should or could not also incoporate part of Belgium. If it can do good for the people, why not? I really don't consider the chapters as nations or countries. If say people from
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Delphine Ménard wrote: [OT] On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:34, Sebastian Moleski seb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote: It is interesting how the power distance thing is playing out here. :) I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? For Germans, power distance [1] [2] is small, which means, for example, that it's easy for the employees to go to their boss and talk about things and make decisions on their own, it makes delegation easier. For the French, power distance is big, which means hierarchy is much stronger, and chain of command is more important, which makes delegation harder. Of course, there are millions of other factors coming into play at any given time. But I thought it was interesting to see yours and Florence's reaction on this. Delphine [1] http://www.geert-hofstede.com/ (scroll down the page) [2] and for a little self promotion: http://blog.notanendive.org/post/2008/07/25/Distance-to-power-somewhere-in-the-middle One still wonders how the French Wikipedia could ever develop... Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the 50 states, and also has some afiliates in the colonies (France, Germany etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others. New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say that a nation must always be better then a city, we say that one wikimedian is equal to one wikimedian. A Wikimedian in WMNYC who pays dues and participates is equal to a Wikimedian in Wikimedia France who pays dues and participates. To say that one group of our volunteers should be discounted because they represent a smaller area is not a good thing. Subnational chapters allow wikimedians to organize in ways that are suitable for them, and allow them to participate equally. Chapters are chapters, Wikimedians are Wikimedians, and we should not be drawing lines between them, or ranking their relative importance. Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of an Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that Wikimedia accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we would have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of trouble. And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other organizations. This is a slightly different issue. Subnational chapters are entirely contained in a single country and therefore have a unified legal system to operate under. Transnational chapters do not, and can run into problems from the simple operation of transporting donated money from a member to headquarters, or bringing members to meetings. I don't want to say that a trans-national chapter should not be a possibility if it was the correct course to take, but it certainly is a very different situation from a subnational chapter. Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving wrong ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New Yorkers, how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?) We shouldn't deny a chapter to any group who is willing to do the organizational work and who are interested in participating in Wikimedia. At the moment the only rules we have are: 1) Chapters cannot overlap 2) Chapters should not cross national boundaries 3) Chapters must have a well-defined geographical area Any group who satisfies these basic requirements, is active, and is willing to do the organizational work that's required should be allowed to form a chapter. The goal of having chapters in the first place is to help Wikimedians be empowered and get involved. We do not use chapters as a tool to elevate some Wikimedians and hold back others. Some more questions: * NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a North Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be happy about and volontarily dissolve? NYC does clearly define it's borders: New York State, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. These are written in it's bylaws. We do not allow overlapping chapters, so if a group of Wikimedians in Philadelphia wanted to create a separate chapter right now they would not be allowed to. By that same token, Wikimedians in Sicily would not be allowed to create a separate chapter from Wikimedia Italia. I'm also not sure I understand the last part of the question, what do you mean by knocks on the door of the WMF...? * Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group of Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want three regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)? This is a very common issue, and it's up to the Wikimedians in Belgium to decide the best way for them to organize. We should not be dictating to them who they must work with, who they must interact with, or where they must participate. Belgians can decide for themselves how to proceed. If there is not enough support to create a national chapter, then one will not be created in Belgium. * Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own? There is no demanding, chapters
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say that a nation must always be better then a city, we say that one wikimedian is equal to one wikimedian. A Wikimedian in WMNYC who pays dues and participates is equal to a Wikimedian in Wikimedia France who pays dues and participates. To say that one group of our volunteers should be discounted because they represent a smaller area is not a good thing. So would you suggest that votes at chapter meetings, etc., be weighted by membership? That gets rather complicated when you consider that different chapters function in different ways (different membership fees, different responsibilities of members, different classes of membership, etc). If you have one vote per chapter then it becomes completely arbitrary. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
2009/1/20 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com wrote: Two answers to this question: 1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap. However, it may be possible in the future if both groups agree to share space, but we haven't had an issue like that and I can't imagine the benefit of doing it that way. Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then be Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County? Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco, since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the California-except chapter would make such impossible? It does seem odd to me that there is a New York City chapter rather than a New York chapter. As I understand it, companies in the US are registered at state level. State boundaries are far more clearly defined (yes, I'm sure there is a legal definition of NYC, but it doesn't sound like the chapter are using it). The state of New York isn't overly large compared with the area under the remit of other existing chapters. So why doesn't this chapter represent the whole of the state? I really can't see any reason for it not to. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then be Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County? Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco, since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the California-except chapter would make such impossible? 5 Friends and their dog cannot make a chapter. To become a chapter, you need to have critical mass: You need enough people to form a board, you need possible members. You need to be able to raise money, and you need to be able to perform activities. If we have a situation where there are enough Wikimedians in Scramento, Los Angeles, and San Jose to each form chapters, we should consider ourselves to be very lucky. More likely, to build the critical mass necessary to start a new chapter, Wikimedians from all these places may need to work together instead of working apart. The smaller the geographical area is, the fewer potential members you have, the less money you are likely to be able to raise, and the fewer outreach activities you will have available to you. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say that a nation must always be better then a city, we say that one wikimedian is equal to one wikimedian. A Wikimedian in WMNYC who pays dues and participates is equal to a Wikimedian in Wikimedia France who pays dues and participates. To say that one group of our volunteers should be discounted because they represent a smaller area is not a good thing. So would you suggest that votes at chapter meetings, etc., be weighted by membership? That gets rather complicated when you consider that different chapters function in different ways (different membership fees, different responsibilities of members, different classes of membership, etc). If you have one vote per chapter then it becomes completely arbitrary. My only suggestion is that the situation is very complicated, and we cannot always say that national chapters must be more important then sub-national chapters. It's entirely conceivable that WMNYC will have more active members then some national chapters do, so why should it be counted less? Some chapters might be very large and successful, so maybe they should be weighted more. There is no way to make the system completely fair, for reasons you suggest and for others entirely. However, that doesn't mean we should draw a line in the sand and say Wikimedians on this side of the line are more important then Wikimedians on the other side are. I would hate to see Wikimedia Chapters used as a vehicle to disenfranchise certain groups when it comes to global educational initiatives. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It does seem odd to me that there is a New York City chapter rather than a New York chapter. As I understand it, companies in the US are registered at state level. State boundaries are far more clearly defined (yes, I'm sure there is a legal definition of NYC, but it doesn't sound like the chapter are using it). The state of New York isn't overly large compared with the area under the remit of other existing chapters. So why doesn't this chapter represent the whole of the state? I really can't see any reason for it not to. Consider it a case of bad naming: The bylaws say that the chapter covers the entire state (and several neighboring states). However, the working name of the group is New York City because that's where their organizational focus is located. I personally live in Philadelphia and plan to become a member of WMNYC soon. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Can we stop using the words sub-chapter? It implies something that doesn't exist - there are sub-national chapters, which is descriptive of their geographic coverage and nothing else. Sub-chapter seems to suggest some grouping less than a full chapter, or subordinate to a chapter, and that isn't the case. It appears that this has caused some confusion. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, At some stage you get used to it. Some people call the language committee the language sub-committee. This while the committee it should be a sub off does not even exist any more. While I do think that the New York sub chapter will do great things and will even do better then some chapters, it does not represent a country. It will not negotiate national commercial deals ... or will it ? Thanks, GerardM 1) Not a sub chapter. Please don't use that term anymore because it is incorrect and misleading. 2) What national commercial deals? 3) It does not represent a country. It also doesn't represent a language or a religion or a skin color. These are not important to us. It does represent a group of active Wikimedians, and this IS important to us. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Florence writes: The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and names. Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement. Afaik, only one chapter has. When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we can not negociate. After ongoing review of the chapter agreements, both as templates and as they have been specifically implemented, I believe Florence's characterization here is fundamentally correct. In general, the chapter agreements as they are implemented nowadays do not delegate to the chapters the right to negotiate business propositions regarding wikimedia project logos. I should add that I have not reviewed every single chapter agreement (notably, I haven't reviewed the German chapter agreement), and that in the course of trying to regularize chapter agreements we have discovered that our records of chapter agreements are incomplete, or at least scattered. (This is not a result of the relocation to San Francisco -- I think the records were disorganized or complete prior to the move.) Among my goals for this calendar year are (a) improving record-keeping of the specific chapter agreements, (b) harmonizing, to the extent possible, the chapter agreements so that there is a fairly standard understanding of what chapters may do or are likely to do as a function of their agreement with WMF, (c) improving chapter agreements in terms of trademark management and brand identification. We have asked the Stanford Law School Organizations and Transactions Clinic to work with us on reviewing and revising our standard chapters agreement this year, and if our previous experience with them is any guide, we expect this collaboration to be fruitful. On another topic, for what it's worth, I find it clearer to think of subnational chapters rather than subchapters. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Ziko, The United States previously had no chapter, no organization in which members of the community could gain membership and organize events, activities and pursuits independent from the legal organization of Wikimedia. The state of New York has 20 million people. What country in Europe or anywhere else of 20 million people would be refused a chapter? On what basis should such a chapter be denied? That people oppose the creation of a New York chapter, and thus limiting American community members in a way non-American community members are not limited, on the basis that it somehow creates an imbalance... I find it hard to credit. Nothing in a New York chapter should be interpreted as reducing the power over Wikimedia of Europeans. It should be noted that there are a number of non-American members of the Board, and neither the director nor the deputy director of the organization is American. Nathan On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote: First, I do not want to diminish the happiness of the New Yorkers having a chapter making their activities easier. But I do think very negative about this step of the Board, both for emotional and practical reasons. Emotional: Having a NYC chapter next to the French, German etc. makes France, Germany etc. look the equals to New York. It makes the Wikimedia Foundation look an American organization that has regional chapters in the 50 states, and also has some afiliates in the colonies (France, Germany etc.). As Gerard has said, some countries are more equal than others. Practical: When I once talked with Arne Klempert about the possibility of an Esperanto or Latin or Alemannic chapter, he explained to me that Wikimedia accepts only chapters within international boundaries, one chapter per country. There is a German, Austrian, and a Swiss chapter, not a German language or a French language chapter. If this would not be so, if we would have chapters based on something else, we would get into a lot of trouble. And he easily convinced me, because I know similar problems from other organizations. Allowing sub national chapters (or super national chapters) is giving wrong ideas to a lot of people. If we did not deny a chapter to the New Yorkers, how can we deny it to other regions, minorities etc.? (Or prevent that personal conflicts are realized on the level of regions?) Some more questions: * NYC chapter does not clearly define its borders, talks about a region where it wants to be active. What if other Wikimedians wants to create a chapter in a city that is now in the New York chapter region? When a North Eastern US Chapter knocks on the door of WMF, will the NYC chapter be happy about and volontarily dissolve? * Ethnically divided countries: Belgium, for example: What if one group of Belgian Wikimedians wants to create a Belgian chapter, but others want three regional chapters (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia)? * Minorities without region: What if there is an Estonian chapter, but Russian speaking people there demand a chapter of their own? * When the chapters are going to work together more than now, and are going to elect WMF board members: Will one chapter have one vote? Will there be 50 US chapters with 50 votes, and one French chapter with one vote? * Isn't it much easier for WMF to relate to a limited number of national chapters than with a potentially unlimited number of national, sub national, or super national chapters? It might have been better to consider the NYC chapter indeed as a sub chapter, a stand-in until there will be an US chapter. Kind regards Ziko ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't change my point, it's just a matter of scale... Suppose there's a chapter in Georgia, and one for Kentucky and Tennessee. Then some people come around and start on a chapter for the southeast. That's going to be a quite strange assortment of states they're going to represent. So it's a problem if a chapters geographical area is strange? Or maybe the biggest concern is that a chapter may be named in such a way that's confusing to non-members? If these are our biggest problems concerning the hypothetical development of subnational chapters, then I am relieved. If we are lucky enough to have 4 active chapters in the south east region of the USA, then this is quite a good problem to have! --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Ting writes: yes, this is also very unconvenient for the foundation and this is the reason why the board want to talk to the chapter about the growth and maturity of the chapters. If we can help, we would like to help. We want that all chapters can do agreements and the foundations don't need to do them in these areas. We also hope that the chapters can talk with the museums and archives and organize academies and so on. We would like to see the chapters more active. I think Ting's comment here underscores a possible disconnect between his comments and Florence's. Florence is correct that the chapters thus far have had only very limited autonomy to develop business arrangements without Foundation approval. But Ting is correct (as I understand it) that the Foundation believes the chapters are well- positioned to do things like develop relationships with museums and other repositories of information, as well as organizing academies and similar functions. In other words, the chapters are not, in general, agents delegated to do business on behalf of the Foundation. Instead, they are independent organizations who do outreach and education in service of the projects and the larger Wikimedia movement. Of course, my own understanding of all this is probably as imperfect and evolving as anyone else's. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Andrew's comment brings up a separate, but serious, issue. Suppose the Hong Kong chapter had initially declared itself the Chinese chapter - would that forever preclude the creation of other, separate chapters within the geographical territory of China? That presents a first-past-the-post incentive, and might encourage prospective chapters to describe themselves in as broad a way as possible. I don't think that the New York chapter ought to have declared itself a United States chapter, even if it had declared a broad scope and intent, and I don't think that if it had done that future chapters of a smaller area should be barred. The geographic limitations on chapters should be re-evaluated, perhaps with an eye towards requiring the selection of a single jurisdiction for each chapter (in the US, perhaps federal/state/local) and only one chapter per jurisdiction. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, Please understand what a chapter could do, should do when you take the projects out of the equation for a moment. The WMF organisation, and the chapters are part of that, ENABLE the projects. Border lines are typically where jurisdictions start and end. If that does not make sense to you, we are talking about completely different things. Do however consider if there is a need for what I am talking about !!! Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, At some stage you get used to it. Some people call the language committee the language sub-committee. This while the committee it should be a sub off does not even exist any more. While I do think that the New York sub chapter will do great things and will even do better then some chapters, it does not represent a country. It will not negotiate national commercial deals ... or will it ? Thanks, GerardM 1) Not a sub chapter. Please don't use that term anymore because it is incorrect and misleading. 2) What national commercial deals? 3) It does not represent a country. It also doesn't represent a language or a religion or a skin color. These are not important to us. It does represent a group of active Wikimedians, and this IS important to us. --Andrew Whitworth ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
By the way, this word chapter is unfamiliar for me, a German. I did not hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this English word mean? Any sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated to a city than to a country? A chapter is a sub-division of an organisation. I'm not sure it's really the best word to describe our chapters, since they are very much independent. They are more local affiliates than chapters. The word local in German (lokal) means: related to a city. What does it mean when English speaking Wikimedians talk about local chapters? Shouldn't it be national chapters? I consider Germany as a national, not a local entity... Local in English just means related to a certain geographical area, the definition does not specify the size of that area. It is usually clear from context - it can refer to anything from a village to the Local Group, the collection of galaxies that the Milky Way is part of. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Entities in an International Movement. Was: Re: Board resolutions (chapters)
Hello Ting, Well, it is really difficult to know how the Esperanto community or, say, the Red Cross (and Red Crescent) Movement would organize themselves if they would come to life in these days. Maybe it would not be that different. Let my lay out the matters with regard to different entities in an international movement, with the Red Cross, Esperanto and Wikimedia as examples. First, the Core: A person or an organization that deals with the central subject of the movement, also with trademarks. In our three examples, this entity has a board but not members in the way a member organization has. * In the Red Cross Movement it is the International Committee of the Red Cross, founded by several nation states in 1863/64 (actually, it is not a NGO in the strict sense). It defines the principles of the movement and recognizes national organisations that then have the right to call themselves a Red Cross organisation. The committee with international members has its seat in Switzerland. * In the Esperanto movement, it is the Academy of Esperanto that observes the usage of the language and defines rules. It was founded in 1905/06 (under a different name). It is cooptating its members. Everybody has the right to use the name Esperanto, so the Academy does not recognize organizations or deals with trademarks. Since 1922/34, other organisations pay contributions to facilitate the work of the Academy. * In the Wikimedia movement (or community), it is the Wikimedia Foundation that runs the projects technically and gives local organisations the right to use the trademarks. It was established by Jimmy Wales in 2003, in a similar way Zamenhof established the Academy. Second, national organisations: * After 1864, friends of the Red Cross idea founded national organizations in several countries. They must not only be recognized by the International Committee, but also by the national government. * Before and after the Academy of Esperanto was founded, Esperanto speakers in several countries founded national organisations, independently from each other. * Since 2004, there are national (or local) organizations of Wikimedians. The organization must be recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation if it wants the right to use the name Wikimedia and other trademarks. Third, an international member organisation: * This exists or existed only in the Esperanto movement. Because of the internationalism of the language itself, in 1908 some Esperantists created Universal Esperanto Association (UEA). The idea was to collect all Esperantists as direct members of UEA, although the UEA members were encouraged to create organizational entities in their countries. This was creating a concurrence against the already existing national organisations. * (Theoretically, one can imagine an international member organizations of Wikimedians, as WMF itself is not a member organization.) Fourth, a federation of national organizations: * Besides the International Committee, the national Red Cross organizations have founded in 1919 an International Federation. Its members must be societes recognized by the Committee. The Federation is the actual coordinator of international Red Cross activities like banning land mines, creating large scale humanitarian projects, not the International Committee. * In the Esperanto movement, the national organizations tried to create a federation in concurrence to or in cooperation with the already existing UEA. In 1933/34, a compromise was settled: UEA since then still has individual members on the one hand, on the other it serves as a federation of the national organizations. The highest body of UEA is the committee, a kind of parliament. Some of its members are elected by the individual (EA members, others are delegates from the national organizations. Most of the national Esperanto organizations are affiliated to UEA, but some are not (usually because they have less than 100 national members). - After a lot of negative experiences, UEA recognizes only one national organization in one country. (I could elaborate, but you know my book, Ting. :-) ) * And Wikimedia? How will the collaboration of the chapters look like in future? WMF allows them to send two people to the WMF board, this creates a need for more coordination and common actions between the chapters. Questions will rise like who is going to vote with how many votes. I have put some ideas last year, when we discussed about a Wiki Council, into this plan: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Federation Kind regards Ziko By the way I am reading your book about the International Esperanto Conference. I see a lot of parallels from them and us (for example the definition of neutrality, internationality and so on). I find it very very interesting. Thank you very much for the book. And do you think that the Esperanto community would organize strictly in national chapters if they start today, and not more than hundred years ago? Ting
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Florence Devouard wrote: Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ? There are no sub-chapters. The proper term is sub-national chapters. And they are chapters as much as any other chapter. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Florence Devouard wrote: Michael Snow wrote: Florence Devouard wrote: For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla). It is a chapter. ... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City So... the resolution stating that The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Sub-National Chapter should actually be read as The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Chapter ? J I fail to see the distinction. A sub-national chapter and a national chapter are both still full chapters; as opposed to something which would be considered a sub-chapter--which would be completely different. I don't see how the Board has to rephrase anything. Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJdg2/yQg4JSymDYkRAlxGAKCQLW6F4DF3Bauer217fExL8y+mrgCgriCo THpeVBxX/ZUhlIfaAZYjX/c= =9WQb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
--- On Tue, 1/20/09, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: By the way, this word chapter is unfamiliar for me, a German. I did not hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this English word mean? Any sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated to a city than to a country? The word local in German (lokal) means: related to a city. What does it mean when English speaking Wikimedians talk about local chapters? Shouldn't it be national chapters? I consider Germany as a national, not a local entity... Ziko In my experience a chapter means a organization that is associated with a larger organization with serperate officers from from the larger organization, but the key feature is that it manages it's own memebership. The larger organization is usualy more closely tied to chapters than in the case of WMF. But chapters are generally run independently and the larger organization which enforces it's requirements or morals with threats to cut ties with the chapter rather than any direct managment of chapter activities. Normally chapters are put on probation and given a chance to correct things before being cut off completely. Chapters are most recognizable to me in social soiceties and advocay groups. But I think the it would normal for unions and charity organizations use them too. de.WP has an article on Freemasonary, the lodges within that are should very similar to use of chapters of a greek letter society as that was all modeled on freemasonary. I don't if there is a general concept in German for the way lodge is used in Freemasaonary, but in English chapter applies to this concept. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Florence and Gerard, Could you perhaps not insist on using the non-existent term sub-chapters? If we're going to rehash the ages old discussion on US chapters and what does a chapter do and Why does the US need this and other such dead horses, it'd be nice if we all used the proper terminology. Thanks. -Dan On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Florence Devouard wrote: Michael Snow wrote: Florence Devouard wrote: For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla). It is a chapter. ... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City So... the resolution stating that The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Sub-National Chapter should actually be read as The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Chapter ? J I fail to see the distinction. A sub-national chapter and a national chapter are both still full chapters; as opposed to something which would be considered a sub-chapter--which would be completely different. I don't see how the Board has to rephrase anything. Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJdg2/yQg4JSymDYkRAlxGAKCQLW6F4DF3Bauer217fExL8y+mrgCgriCo THpeVBxX/ZUhlIfaAZYjX/c= =9WQb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Dan Rosenthal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: One problem with the URLs you gave me is that they don't seem to be very up-to-date. For instance, in http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Reusing_Citizendium_Content it says After Wikipedia finalizes its decision to allow relicensing of its contents under CC-by-sa, *GFDL* in the previous paragraph may be replaced by * CC-by-sa*. I've reread that again and realized I was just misreading it. That raises the question, though. Has Citizendium relicensed its GFDL content (including any content it imported from Wikipedia before November 1, 2008) under CC-BY-SA? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing
2009/1/20 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: That doesn't really any of my questions, though I was more looking for an answer from Erik or Mike anyway. It's a fairly important question, since compatibility with other works under CC-BY-SA is allegedly the main reason for the relicensing. Is the question clear? Maybe I should be even more specific. How would one go about using content from Citizendium in Wikipedia, if Wikipedia relicenses content under CC-BY-SA? Assuming a large number of authors on Citizendium. Use the export function there to provide the file in a useful format and reactivate the import function on en to export it (at a pinch is should be possible to put together a script that can grab the relevant information and turn it into a file suitable for import to wikipedia without having to use the export function). For smaller numbers of authors there are workarounds. How would a third party go about using the combined work? Depends on the context. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
How about we just close this thread. We do not need to rehash the debate, it is a dead horse. From: Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:59:39 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters) Florence and Gerard, Could you perhaps not insist on using the non-existent term sub-chapters? If we're going to rehash the ages old discussion on US chapters and what does a chapter do and Why does the US need this and other such dead horses, it'd be nice if we all used the proper terminology. Thanks. -Dan On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Florence Devouard wrote: Michael Snow wrote: Florence Devouard wrote: For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla). It is a chapter. ... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City So... the resolution stating that The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Sub-National Chapter should actually be read as The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Chapter ? J I fail to see the distinction. A sub-national chapter and a national chapter are both still full chapters; as opposed to something which would be considered a sub-chapter--which would be completely different. I don't see how the Board has to rephrase anything. Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJdg2/yQg4JSymDYkRAlxGAKCQLW6F4DF3Bauer217fExL8y+mrgCgriCo THpeVBxX/ZUhlIfaAZYjX/c= =9WQb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Dan Rosenthal ___ 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] Steward-Wahl
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Jan Luca j...@jans-seite.de wrote: Hallo, bei der dem Durchschauen der Stward-Liste ist mir aufgefallen, dass kein Steward sich besonders in einen der Wikiversity(ich habe mir speziell de.WV und en.WV angeschaut) aktiv ist. Leider können einige der Mitarbeiter nicht kandidieren, da viel einen Zeitmangel besitzen oder andere(wie ich) nicht an den Voraussetzungen vorbei kommen(ich bin z.B. keine 18 Jahre alt). Nach meiner Meinung sollte etwas dagegen getan werden, weil ich finde, dass von allen Projekten einige Stewards kommen sollten, damit man sich austauschen kann. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jan Luca(deutsche Wikiversity) Stewards are global, they don't need to be from a specific project -- they can be form any. Also, it's up to them to stand. :-) Though it shouldn't matter, we're a global community and there are many people who work on both projects. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Steward-Wahl
2009/1/20 Jan Luca j...@jans-seite.de: Aber, wenn kein Steward von einen der Wikiversity-Projekte kommt und auch keiner dort mitarbeitet, ist es schwer das Projekt zu beurteilen, da man keinen Live-Mitarbeiter hat. Ich weiß, dass Stewards global sind und auf alle Projekte zugreifen können. Yes, you are right -- it's best to have well-rounded candidates. But in the end, stewards don't decide so they are just people to do the actions of the community. However, if you really want to get a Wikiversity candidate, the only way to do it is to encourage them to nominate themselves! You have a few days left. :-) -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored, five people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of effort. 5 people is not critical mass, and I cannot imagine that the chapcom would approve a potential chapter that has only 5 members. 5 people can do many wonderful things, but that does not make them a chapter. Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence of the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does not want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere not to use the sub-chapter word, he is right in that the board names them a chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way. This is all blatantly false. What abilities and responsibilities are not available to WMNYC that our other national-level chapters have? Besides the fact that the WMF itself is based on the USA and therefore is more able to enter into business agreements with companies here then in other countries, I see no limitation on this or any other subnational chapter. Do not assume that this group is at any disadvantage compared to our other national chapters. In fact, this chapter is in BETTER shape then some of our national chapters are, having already sponsored a number of outreach projects, creating working relationships with other organizations, and soliciting high-profile donations from museums and other content repositories. We have national chapters that have not had as much activity in the last year that WMNYC has had in the last two months. The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is obvious that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I want to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me. WMNYC does not need to impress you, and does not need your approval Gerard. Their success will be measured in volunteers, donation dollars, and media contributed to our projects. What national concerns do you expect that they will not be able to address? Our sub-national nomenclature indicates only that they are smaller in size then the country that contains them, nothing more. If I called them a super-municipal chapter or a regional chapter, would your opinion of them improve? If I called our current chapters sub-global or sub-continental, would that change your opinion of them too? --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hoi, When you call the non performing chapters malperforming, I am ok with that. It is calling a spade a spade. Calling it insulting that the NYC has fewer responsibilities indicates that you have a thin skin. I am the first to acknowledge that the NYC did some great things. I love to learn the good things they do so that I can use them when appropriate. I do think that it is wrong that there is no USA chapter, I also think that the NYC should be part of such a chapter. The one thing were you do not get it, is that it is not geographically, it is about jurisdictions, tax exemptons et al. This is where national rules make the difference. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that Wikimedia needs an American chapter to fulfill chapter functions nationwide, and that the NYC chapter is subpar because it will not? What you've been asked is to use the accurate name of the chapter type rather than one that is inaccurately descriptive. You may believe that there are deficiencies in the notion of a sub-national chapter that earn it the sub-chapter description, but I think its rather insulting of you to insist on using it when its been made clear that its initial use was a misunderstanding. By a similar token, should we insist on calling not very active or useful national chapters something like mal-chapters or dead weight chapters in regular conversation? I don't think so. The New York chapter does not appear to be limited in any functional way - it can perform all the functions of any normal chapter, it has merely determined a specific geographic region in which to pursue those functions. Why this makes it any less of a chapter than some other specific geographically restricted chapter that happens to coincide with national political borders I don't fully understand. Can you expand on that, please? Of course, the chapter has already been created and recognized and going forward it will be the membership of the chapter of New York City that is responsible for its role and functioning, not the members of this list. Nathan On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, When the right five friends come together, they do not need their dog to make a successful organisation. Five people are enough to make a bored, five people are enough to raise money. It takes dedication and a lot of effort. One essential ingredient is that a chapter represents to some extend the people of projects. Key is the limitation; a chapter has a particular importance that the organisational aspects of the WMF get represented. It is not right that most of the donations are from the USA. This means that a more local chapter effort needs to make a difference in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and South America. The reason why a chapter represents to some extend the people of projects exists on several levels and on the other hand it is wrong. Many of the activities have no relation to the projects at all while a chapter provides the projects with opportunities that would otherwise not exist. By being organised there is the opportunity to connect to archives, to politics, to become the public face for the projects. Ting ruled out the existence of an USA chapter because of the existence of the New York chapter. It is equally clear that the WMF organisation does not want to fulfill the role of an USA chapter. When Dan asks me and Anthere not to use the sub-chapter word, he is right in that the board names them a chapter, but the issue of the New York chapter having fewer abilities and responsibilities is conveniently swept under the carpet in this way. The prefix sub indicates that it is less then the norm. For me it is obvious that some great five or more people will make the NYC a success. What I want to learn is in what way the national concerns that I expect a functional chapter to take care off will be handled for the USA. This is the crucial bit of thinking, information that is missing. And as long as this is not clear, the NYC is a sub-par to me. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: Well, one benefit would be that it avoids strange definitions of chapter boundaries. Suppose that we have a Los Angeles chapter and a Monterey County chapter, and then people from San Jose, Sacramento and a few smaller cities come together to make a chapter, would this then be Wikimedia California except Los Angeles City and Monterey County? Or should it perhaps also be restricted to not include San Francisco, since perhaps there will be a city chapter there, and created the California-except chapter would make such impossible? 5 Friends and their dog cannot make a chapter.
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: [snip] The one thing were you do not get it, is that it is not geographically, it is about jurisdictions, tax exemptons et al. This is where national rules make the difference. Could you rephrase this? I've re-read it about 5-6 times and your wording still isn't parsing for me. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de: Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter beside a Dutch chapter is not possible. It was my understanding from the sub-national chapters document that such chapters might be permitted to form anyway: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters (Question: Aren't we setting up sub-national chapters to compete for funding with nation-based chapters?) What I'm taking your statement to mean is that when a subnational chapter is formed where a national chapter could be later formed, the overlap and potential harmful consequences of such overlap would have to be carefully considered before national chapter is approved. Would that be a fair characterization? Or are you meaning 'is not possible' truly in the sense of 'will never happen'? Earlier in this thread, Ting clearly stated that recognition of a sub-national chapter meant a national chapter could not later be formed. Andrew Whitworth indicated the same. Is that not the definitive answer to the question? Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
This is a request for comment. I've posted a draft proposal for the license update here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update It is not intended to be final, but I hope we can arrive at a final version by February 1. We would appreciate questions, comments, feedback. If there are obvious edits which you feel would make the proposal clearer, please do go ahead and make them, but please be careful about edits that substantially alter the proposal itself. Thanks! Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing
2009/1/20 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: Is the question clear? Maybe I should be even more specific. How would one go about using content from Citizendium in Wikipedia, if Wikipedia relicenses content under CC-BY-SA? How would a third party go about using the combined work? How would the attribution rights of the Citizendium contributors be respected? I would say in part this is a problem that the community can collectively solve, as it has historically: We've incorporated information from other GFDL works and attributed them, for example. And we can apply common sense. Contributors to wikis typically have different attribution expectations than authors of monographs who have no connection to the wiki world. Both authors and re-users will express objections or support for different models. And wikis will probably want to develop reasonable standards between them that facilitate their mutual goals. I do believe there are probably technical improvements that we can make to further support free information exchange, such as a richer page history feature, or a metadata blob for this kind of information. But I don't think that such improvements are a necessary precondition: people will continue to use footers, page histories, and talk pages to denote such information. Attribution standards can always be revised based on the respectful dialog between the involved parties. Resolving legal incompatibility, on the other hand, is a necessary precondition for even having these conversations. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
2009/1/20 geni geni...@gmail.com: 1)This isn't legal within anything close to the current wording of the page. CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). 4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is through 4(c)(i). Again lets go through that section you have two things you can attribute to: the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied However since you reject that we have to move onto the second half: if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution (Attribution Parties) in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; So yes you can mess with the attribution requirements using that part of the clause but trying to define say http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canalaction=history; as an Attribution Party is somewhat unreasonable in the context of the paragraph and in the general legal use of the term party. Remember even if you do think you can somehow squeeze this though it still causes issues with wikipedia's habit of deleting things from time to time and prevent the import of CC-BY-SA 3.0 text from third parties. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 03:23:51 Erik Moeller wrote: 2009/1/20 geni geni...@gmail.com: 1)This isn't legal within anything close to the current wording of the page. CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). Don't know about this wording thing, but as a Wikipedia author, I have to say that I do not think that attributing me in this way is sufficient. As a Wikimedian, I believe that a lot of people will feel the same. And as a programmer, I do not see why is this controversy necessary at all, as a number of people have presented a variety of solutions that make it possible to analyse the revisions and extract authors with satisfying accuracy. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Mike Godwin wrote: Florence writes: The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and names. Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement. Afaik, only one chapter has. When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we can not negociate. After ongoing review of the chapter agreements, both as templates and as they have been specifically implemented, I believe Florence's characterization here is fundamentally correct. In general, the chapter agreements as they are implemented nowadays do not delegate to the chapters the right to negotiate business propositions regarding wikimedia project logos. I should add that I have not reviewed every single chapter agreement (notably, I haven't reviewed the German chapter agreement), and that in the course of trying to regularize chapter agreements we have discovered that our records of chapter agreements are incomplete, or at least scattered. (This is not a result of the relocation to San Francisco -- I think the records were disorganized or complete prior to the move.) Among my goals for this calendar year are (a) improving record-keeping of the specific chapter agreements, (b) harmonizing, to the extent possible, the chapter agreements so that there is a fairly standard understanding of what chapters may do or are likely to do as a function of their agreement with WMF, (c) improving chapter agreements in terms of trademark management and brand identification. We have asked the Stanford Law School Organizations and Transactions Clinic to work with us on reviewing and revising our standard chapters agreement this year, and if our previous experience with them is any guide, we expect this collaboration to be fruitful. Good to read :-) Go for it ! By the way, whisperwe still have not received the signed agreement for the fundraiser. Since we raised 50 000 euros or so, that means WMF could loose the control of possibly 20 000 euros. Can you make sure we get that paper so that we can start discussing means to use this money for international goal ? Otherwise, we keep it all ! I mean... one thing we can not complain about WMF is acting like a sharp ;-) /whisper hihi ant On another topic, for what it's worth, I find it clearer to think of subnational chapters rather than subchapters. --Mike ___ 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] Board resolutions (chapters)
Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined
geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter
beside a Dutch chapter is not possible.
It was my understanding from the sub-national chapters document that
such chapters might be permitted to form anyway:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters
(Question: Aren't we setting up sub-national chapters to compete for
funding with nation-based chapters?)
What I'm taking your statement to mean is that when a subnational
chapter is formed where a national chapter could be later formed, the
overlap and potential harmful consequences of such overlap would have
to be carefully considered before national chapter is approved. Would
that be a fair characterization? Or are you meaning 'is not possible'
truly in the sense of 'will never happen'?
Earlier in this thread, Ting clearly stated that recognition of a
sub-national chapter meant a national chapter could not later be formed.
Andrew Whitworth indicated the same. Is that not the definitive answer to
the question?
Nathan
This would be real bad, because it could exclude entire areas that do
not drain sufficient memberships or funds to be able to really create a
sustainable chapter.
That could be typically the case of a country with two big cities and a
big rural area. Two chapters could be created in each city, leaving all
wikipedians in the rural areas helpless. If such was to happen, I hope
WMF would either accept the creation of a national chapter, or negotiate
with the city-chapters so that they can extend membership to neighbours.
Note that this is already the case for many national chapters. In the
French one, we host a couple of people living in Switzerland ('cause
they are French in nationality), as well as from Belgium and Luxembourg,
('cause these nations have no chapter).
I suspect a consensus will need to be found, so that 1) no harm is made
to current chapter and 2) no one be excluded which would defeat the process.
As such, flexibility should be a must.
Ant
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Jimmy Wales wrote: Austin Hair wrote: Every chapter has unique considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter. Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with Austin completely. There can be subnational chapters - meaning that the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but they are not 'sub-chapters'. The New York City metropolitan area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area has 18.8 million people. This is slightly larger than the Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands at 16.4 million. The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter. Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was very tiny having two chapters? It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully balanced. --Jimbo This has to be correct, but I really wonder... can they be. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/21 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: CC General Counsel has confirmed that our proposed attribution model is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA. There is no need to use attribution parties - our proposed approach is consistent with 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). 4(c)(iii) is irrelevant. The foundation not the licensor and the URL is on top of other attribution and copyright stuff. The only way attribution methods can be controlled through CC-BY-SA-3.0 is through 4(c)(i). How is the foundation not distributing the (independently authored) work? Attribution methods are first controlled by 4(c) - specifically reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing. If Mike believes that a URL to the page history for pages with 6 or more authors is acceptable under the terms of the license, and the Creative Commons' staff attorney so agrees, then I believe that they have just defined reasonable to the medium or means we are utilizing in minimum legal terms, at least. If you feel that it's morally repugnant somehow then we can talk, of course, but I believe that this is both reasonable and on first glance close to the optimum balance of practical (in the sense of, can be consistently and legally followed) and ethical (in the sense of, keeping people's credits as closely associated as we can). Again lets go through that section you have two things you can attribute to: the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied However since you reject that we have to move onto the second half: if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution (Attribution Parties) in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; So yes you can mess with the attribution requirements using that part of the clause but trying to define say http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canalaction=history; as an Attribution Party is somewhat unreasonable in the context of the paragraph and in the general legal use of the term party. Remember even if you do think you can somehow squeeze this though it still causes issues with wikipedia's habit of deleting things from time to time and prevent the import of CC-BY-SA 3.0 text from third parties. If we get common agreement with the CC's attorney and the populace as a whole that CC-BY-SA-3.0 means (for wikis with 6+ contributors) what we say it does, then it doesn't prevent any import or have any issue with deleting things. If we delete a contribution, from the page text and page history, then that text is not part of the page that's being served up and to which the license applies. Legally, CC-BY-SA-3.0 could be fought over by me going in and taking all your contributions to a page and paraphrasing them, then taking you out of the authors list as you didn't write any text still appearing on the page. We take a more liberal view- if you contributed, you're in the history. There are exceptions - we do delete revisions in extremis. But in general, not one word you wrote can still be in a current article and you still show up and get credit now. In some cases your ideas may still be present, in some cases they have all been removed, but you still get credit except for rare and narrow circumstances. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
