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