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