Talk:Requirements for future user groups
Plans [edit]
- "Bear in mind that you must have goals that echo those of the Wikimedia Foundation, and its activities should not stray from these tenets."
This sentence muddles goals and mission, and introduces the otherwise undefined term "tenets". "Tenets" are more often associated with the beliefs of a religious or philosophical organisation. Better might be, "Bear in mind that you must have goals that are compatible with the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and your activities should be consistent with that." Eclecticology (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Signing agreements [edit]
I've specified "incorporated user group" in "The group should have a contact person" because I doubt unincorporated things can sign anything. I don't know if incorporated entities can not have a contact person/legal representative, so I guess this is mainly about providing a document? The section would use some clarification. --Nemo 15:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- In case of unincorporated groups a responsible person has to sign the agreement in the name of the group. I've reverted your edit. Best, --Bence (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify a bit, I believe the Foundation is happy to sign trademark agreements with individuals, but even when it signs agreements with incorporated entities, nowadays, they tend to ask for a photo ID. –Bence (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've no idea how agreements with an individual can extend beyond that individual, but thanks for the clarification and the revert. That passage still needs to be rewritten because it's very hard to understand. --Nemo 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- It needs a bit of trust and the person in question to take responsibility for the group's actions. I've tried to clarify that paragraph a bit, let me know if it is better. –Bence (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's better. I've also split the single contact and identification bits in two paragraphs, because mixing them up was confusing. Thanks, Nemo 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- It needs a bit of trust and the person in question to take responsibility for the group's actions. I've tried to clarify that paragraph a bit, let me know if it is better. –Bence (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've no idea how agreements with an individual can extend beyond that individual, but thanks for the clarification and the revert. That passage still needs to be rewritten because it's very hard to understand. --Nemo 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
