Talk:2011-12 Fundraising and Funds Dissemination process/Iberocoop joint statement

"Revalued"?

What is "revalued" supposed to mean in this text: our opinion is that the chapters' model must first be thoroughly revalued and carefully preserved". The only use of revalue that I have ever encountered is a monetary one – to revalue a house, for instance. Do you mean "evaluated"? Or even "respected" (by the Wikimedia Foundation?) Or something else? I'm not very familiar with the underlying issues here, and I'm certainly not confident enough to change it. BTW, I made the most recent edit to the page(at the time of writing), but I forgot to log in. Graham87 07:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the passage goes on to say "in a frank and open exchange", I understand the term to mean "re-evaluated". In my opinion, the point made here is that any decision on the future role of chapters needs to depend on thorough evaluation of the current situation. -- Michael Jahn WMDE 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's more or less what we intended to say, although it comes from Spanish revalorar, to valorate again, to revalorate (the latter also seems to have an exclusively financial sense in English). I'm changing that to re-evaluated for clarity purposes, even if there's some difference between valorizing and evaluating. May this serve as a footnote. Thanks. --Galio 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think re-evaluated carries the intended meaning. Re-evaluate has a rather neutral meaning, which sounds a bit like "we need to see what works and what does not", I believe the intended meaning was more: "The value of the chapter's model must be reasserted and carefully preserved.". notafish }<';> 14:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent. Done (and then I noted a subtle difference). --Galio 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Microempowerment?"

What is meant by 'microempowerment' here? Not getting it. "We believe the current suggestions towards microempowerment are a contradictory and potentially negative development if they ultimately convey or imply overcentralization of resources and movement governance." Bishdatta 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand it as empowering many people (individuals, affiliate organisations, like-minded organisations, chapters) in one given geography for example, as opposed to empowering mainly one entity (a chapter) that will then empower individuals and others, with a comprehensive understanding of the local culture. If that is it, I agree with this view that breaking the activities in a given geography between many different entities, brings with it difficulties of coordination as well as potential conflicts within a geography. It looks to me to be much more difficult to coordinate things from far away than it is on a more local level (principle of subsidiarity). Effectively, having the WMF as sole grant giver means that the coordination happens further from the ground than it would if a chapter coordinates a multitude of projects. More over, I guess that a centralized grant system scales with difficulty when it comes to approving projects of hundreds of euros (need a flyer for the next OpenSource conference) alongside projects with thousands of euros (a chapter with 5 staff). notafish }<';> 12:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It has to do with perceived tendencies to priorize unaffiliated enthusiasts or sui generis groups over the existing chapters' model, i.e. suggesting a Wikimedia chapter has no authority or legitimacy to have a bearing on some issue while at the same time strengthening direct relations (via grants or even GLAM agreements and so) between WMF and said unaffiliated enthusiasts. We believe such tendencies start full of good intentions but develop in a very negative sense when they imply a certain disregard for the role chapters have fulfilled in our movement, as per the reasons Delphine has mentioned. And there's another problem that's not in the Iberocoop document (and thus it is my personal opinion only): chapters have also a role in making multiculturalism real. People who don't have a good level of English are otherwise naturally excluded from these direct relations with the Foundation bypassing local chapters. Thanks, Bishakha, for taking your time to read this document. I'll ask some other people who took part in drafting our statement to give their opinion here, too. --Galio 13:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It has to do with giving the chance to small groups (call them "University of XX Wikimedia fan club", "Friends of Free Knowledge" or something like that) to get money directly from the WMF in countries in the so-called "Global South", but our experience has taught us it can be (it actually is) troublesome because of the many legal hurdles that NGOs must overcome in order to receive funds from abroad. Wikimedia Chapters are already established entities that are legally entitled to receive funds from "The Empire" (as the president of my country calls the USA) and thus it is easier to receive the funds granted by the WMF and then allocate those funds to small entities or individuals who are committed to the development of Free Knowledge. Moreover, it is way harder to control where the money goes if the coordination of these projects is located far away, instead of being done by the local Wikimedia Chapter, which understands way more effectively the local culture and the needs of the community. --Jewbask 13:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As Galio said, microempowerement refers to foster small and informal organizations. Although we agree that microempowerement is a good thing, it shouldn't replace the chapters as the core of our decentralized model. Chapters were born as a way to channel the requirements of those small organizations on a local level and as such, the WMF should help the chapters to do that and not by-pass them. If there is an "Club of Wikimedia cueca lovers" and they have a cool project, awesome! Wikimedia Chile should be the one helping them with the support of the WMF, and not the Foundation funding directly without the needed local knowledge to make those projects viable and successful. Chapters are not fan clubs of Wikimedia projects, we are legal and formal institutions created for the development of community needs and not just financial ones: also logistic, communicational, relational, etc.

Also, there is the problem of different barriers those smaller organizations have to contact with the WMF, being the language one of the most important. You can notice that, even when several people with normal-to-advanced English skills, this document have some mistakes because we are not native speakers. Imagine now what happens with those that can't speak English... how can they contact the WMF and present a good project? Just as an example, we presented as a chapter a grant request for the development of projects in indigenous languages we've been working with small organizations of speakers; that request was denied because the language was "too small". Can you imagine how difficult would be for those small organizations to present a project to the WMF if they only speak Mapudungun and Spanish only at a basic level? That's really important, especially for the countries of the Global South developing countries.

That's why we think it is wrong when we talk about empowering other organizations instead of chapters. We should empower the chapters to work with those organizations in a healthy and positive way. We know that some chapters may not be doing that at this moment, so we need to help them instead of leaving them aside. --B1mbo 14:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add just one thing more regarding the problem of having four or five groups dealing with the press, looking for agreements with the same national bodies, etc. National chapters are supposed to act as the natural local coordinators of Wikimedia activities within a certain geography, in the way WMF acts at the global level. That's why we are partners within a common mission. Of course, there's a problem in the case a chapter does not fulfill that role effectively or does not adapt its working dynamics (both legally and in practice) to the characteristics of its corresponding geography —I'm talking about multilingual or multicultural countries, for instance. In other words, there's a problem if people from the local editing community or unaffiliated enthusiasts can't count on their local chapter to carry projects which are aligned with our common mission and widely judged feasible —by whom? That's a problem WMF and fellow chapters should solve by working together. And there's the ChapCom, whose role we should not forget. Diffusing national layers as part of what we call microempowerment has the potential effect of turning global and general some inconvenients or difficult situations that are now limited to some punctual cases, and this apart from the parallel actual overcentralization of resources and decision making. That's why we talk about reasserting and preserving the value of the chapers' model. Again, this is my personal opinion. --Galio 15:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Only a word. The decentralization is necessary and suitable, since it grants flexibility. But the excessive atomization produces, invariably, more problems that benefits; if transparency is looking, there must be borne in mind that how many more organizations "sui generis" are supplied of the funds, major it will be the possibility of that something goes out badly. Caesar said once: " divide et impera "...

My personal opinion, not of WMES.--Marctaltor 18:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget transparency and auditing issues. Giving grants to individuals and sending money to their accounts is intrinsically more inefficient, error-prone and – yes – fraud-prone than sending money to non-profit entities, and multiplying small grants from a central source doesn't scale in general. It's obvious that such a system can't replace chapters, but can at most (and not necessarily) work best when no chapter exists in the country, as a complementary system. Unless one pursues clientelarismo, obviously (no English word!). Nemo 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, thanks for bringing up this topic. Grants to specific people or informal groups can work best when there is no corresponding chapter for a given geography, but priorizing that system over funding via local chapters is unfortunate even on the practical side of things regarding transparency and auditing —I believe this perspective complements the one exposed in our statement. On another note, the possibility of frauds that you suggest shouldn't IMO be completely disregarded. Local chapters are way more prepared —even for linguistical and cultural reasons— to identify, let's say, scammers or self-promoters. There's no reason for local chapters to deny funding any viable project that goes in line with our mission. And if a chapter repeatedly fails to do so then (and only then) there's the ChapCom. Unless one pursues clientelismo, obviously. --Galio 21:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Compromise"

Regarding developing nations in particular, we acknowledge the Foundation's compromise with strengthening Wikimedia presence in the so-called "Global South"

I suppose that what is meant here is "commitment" rather than compromise. --Johannes Rohr (WMDE) 09:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, false friend. Thanks. --Galio 12:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

While you're at it: commitment to, not with. I know; it's a Wiki, but this is someone else's statement, I don't feel entitled to modify it. --Johannes Rohr (WMDE) 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. --Galio 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been bolder and changed some minor things directly. Nemo 20:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Global South" chapters

Thank you for this very interesting and insightful statement. I am particularly interested in what you have to say about the views of "Global South" chapters to fundraising and funds dissemination. Could you elaborate? Do those chapters wish to fundraise themselves, even though they will be very limited in what they can raise? If so, what do you see as the benefits to fundraising for you? You talk about "trans-chapter cooperation and project-funding". Do you mean cooperation and funding directly between individual chapters, rather than funds going from chapters to a central body and then out again? Can you expand on that? How do you see that working? --Tango 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The other questions I can try to answer after, but where did you take that chapters in global south "will be very limited in what they can raise"? Should I remind you again that Brazil is the 6th economy in the World (ahead of pretty much all Europe - sources: The Guardian, BBC)? That Chile has less problems with corruption than USA? Or that India has one of the biggest market around? That those two alone are so strong that even WMF realized that and are put lots of money and effort to it? That "poor Global South" mentality need to change. Béria Lima ^msg 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think first thing we have to do is to relativize that "Global South" chapters will be very limited in what they can raise. First of all, because actually the "Global South" does not exist. Latin America is not Sub-Saharan Africa nor Central Asia, and even within Latin America there are substantial differences beween, for instance, the Southern Cone (AR+CL+UY+southern BR), the Andean nations and México. Secondly, because much of the current lack of donations from this side of the world (I'll refer only to Latin America) comes from the importance of the informal economy and low banking penetration. That doesn't mean that we are dying of hunger —Argentina has for example a higher Internet penetration that many European countries and a per capita GDP (PPP) similar to that of Eastern European countries, and Buenos Aires City in particular one similar to that of Western European countries. It mostly has to do with the lack of proper donation mechanisms, adapted to the local customs and regulations. Most people here don't have an international credit card nor will they trust to make an international donation to a US-based NGO, but everyone is used to pay their bills at any drugstore with a simple barcode. The local chapter could provide such a system, while centralized fundraising can never be flexible enough. This year WMF fundraised about USD 20k from Argentina, back from some 30k last year. The decline in donations has to do with new currency regulations, but even 30k is far less than what we believe can be raised. On a third and last note, we know that our chapter activities will probably demand more money than what we could fundraise by ourselves. But at least we could help the whole movement by raising funds that are currently out of reach, thus releasing money from the "Global North" that could then be used for other geographies, projects or initiatives. We should not forget the capacity building factor. Being able to fundraise implies adapting your chapter to procedures, rules, legal frameworks, accountability practices, communications with donors, a PR campaign, etc., which engender an important organizational growth. There are significant collateral benefits to consider. Regarding trans-chapter cooperation and project-funding, let me first remark that we are not talking about concrete measures but about what we believe is the best possible direction for our movement to develop. Trans-chapter cooperation could develop both bilaterally (there have been some experiences), through cooperation frameworks (Iberocoop, for example) or through bodies such as a chapters' council. That said, we are clear when we state that this does not imply any disregard for the central, global and coordinating role WMF plays in fundraising and funds dissemination. --Galio 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Also I'd like to emphasize about the existence of Pagomiscuentas.com, an electronic bill payment system which is very popular in Argentina. We were talking about using it as a potential platform for future donation campaigns, taking advantage of debit cards, which is by far the preferred payment method in use thanks to the measures taken by the national government against unreported employment.

Furthermore, the widespread use of the "Sistema Único de Boleto Electrónico" (Unified Electronic Ticket System) could be an excellent instrument for "contactless" donations through RFID cards. As you can see, we rely on several alternatives in this matter. Mahadeva 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC) (WMAR Deputy Treasurer)

My apologies for my poor choice of words. I hate the phrase "Global South", but feel forced to use it because that's what everybody use is using. It is far too vague. You are, of course, absolutely right that a country like Brazil (which I would usually call an "emerging economy") is very different to a country like Ethiopia, say (which I would describe as a "developing economy", although I don't like that phrase much either). I expect you could raise enough in Brazil for it to be worth it. I think you would need to raise substantially more than $30k in a country for it to be worthwhile from a financial point of view, though (I don't agree with Sue's estimate of $250k as a minimum - you shouldn't need to spend anywhere near that much to fundraise effectively - the real minimum is probably somewhere in the $50-100k range and will vary from country to country). The non-financial gains from fundraising are very important, though, so thank you for expanding on what you see those to be. --Tango 02:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You've raised an interesting question and have no reason to apologize. I think it would be good to run a few days of the fundraising campaign offering alternative donation methods supported by the local chapter, such as the printable barcodes I mentioned or Pagomiscuentas.com. Argentina's fundraising potential is way more than USD 30k, I'd say it's at least within your minimum range. Brazil is, of course, a much clearer case —and note that its socio-economical indicators are generally worse than Argentina's, regarding "Global Southerness". Yet, I have no problem if we can't fundraise under whatever reasonable rules are agreed. The key issue our statement raises is not that one, which was already developed in a very good way by WMDE, but overcentralization of decision making (incidentally via overcentralization of financial resources). --Galio 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to do a few days, you meant as well do the whole fundraiser - a lot of time and money of fundraising is in the setting up. It wouldn't make much sense to set everything up and then only fundraise for a few days. I think it would be very interesting to have a chapter like Wikimedia Argentina take responsibility for fundraising in their country next year and see what happens. The Foundation clearly isn't able to raise much money there, so you can't really do any worse. If you can raise substantially more than the WMF has been doing, then that will be some very strong evidence that chapters can be a good way to fundraise. At the moment, the chapters that have taken responsibility for fundraising have been in countries where the WMF already does a reasonably good job, so there hasn't been as much potential to improve as there is somewhere like Argentina. --Tango 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Chapters in the so-called "Global South" can actually raise money -although not a lot like countries in Europe and North America- but certainly there is potential for growth: for instance, Venezuelan holders of international credit cards, due to a tight currency control policy, can use up to US$400 in electronic transactions abroad a year, which is not exactly a lot of money. But despite that, the money donated in 2011 from Venezuela increased from US$ 1,781 in 2010 to US$ 7,617 in 2011, which is a 328% increase. Was this significant increase because venezuelans know of the existence of a local Wikimedia chapter and its activities in Venezuela? Perhaps. Was it because of the raising awareness in Venezuela of how important is to support the development of Free Knowledge through the WMF and its projects? I am pretty sure it is one of the reasons :-) But if we could fundraise at a local level, taking advantage of local laws that encourage small, medium and big-size companies to contribute in Open-Source Software and Free Knowledge development in exchange for tax exemptions, and also more money from small donors, private individuals who could use local e-payment plaftorms that do not require a credit card, we could raise substantially more money. Centralized fundraising will leave many sources of valuable donations in our countries unable to reach the movement. --Jewbask 04:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see the statements here that have been made by the "Global South" chapters. Of course, there is no such thing as the Global South, it's just a convenient (or lazy, depending on how you look at it) way to lump together a whole bunch of countries that have a wide range of issues. The thing is, I don't think that there is really any justification in splitting the movement into "Global South" and "Global North" spheres. In each country where the movement operates, there are issues to be overcome but also opportunities to be taken. The challenges that you might have in, say, Bolivia, are different to what will be experienced in Kenya, in India, or in Samoa. I think someone from WMKE said at the last chapters meeting, and I agree wholeheartedly, that chapters in what might be termed the "developing world" should not be handheld or patronized, and that all chapters and programmes should be considered based solely on their likely impact, not by on which country they're being run in. Craig Franklin 09:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Community ≠ Chapters

First off, thanks for preparing this statement. It is very useful for me and other Board members to have well-articulated and thoughtful summaries of the perspectives of different groups in our community. Second, and I admit there might have been a language problem, but I was really struck by this: "We are worried about statements that seem to differentiate chapters from the community, as if chapters were not the primary means of organizing the local communities in an official, powerful and truly multicultural organizational model." As I have written on my blog, I do not believe chapters are in some universal way the primary means of organizing our community. Our community existed just fine before we had chapters. Even today, our community exists just fine in areas we don't have chapters. Chapters can play a critical important role in our movement, but please do not overstate things and claim they are the "primary means of organizing the local communities." And more broadly, I really don't like it when anyone tries to take credit for the work of our editors. All of us on the organizational side of our movement -- chapters, the foundation, other organizations -- we all work for and support the editors. We shouldn't try to claim credit for their work. Stu 06:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree a bit here Stu, rhetoric and hyperbole aside, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I would ask you to look back on the last year and consider all the offline activities we had- Wiki loves monument, Conferences, GLAM work - Chapters were a big composition of offline activities. Chapters are still considered for support when someone thinks of organizing an event- be it Wikimania or a local presentation. Like it or not, this is the model we have, chapters are looked on as the first go-to organization for local contacts, and response when it comes to the projects. WMF is not present in local cases, and editors have no formal affiliation to represent our interests; more often than not, it does come to the chapters to be the primary local contact. Editor community existed very well without chapters, and will continue to exist, but when it comes to offline activities, there is a role chapters play and it is becoming more and more prominent. I believe the two should ideally compliment each other. I didn't see chapters take credit for the work of editors, they are suggesting they usually take the lead for offline organization and activities, usually the first point of contact when it comes to representation. Regards. Theo10011 06:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree Theo that chapters can play an important role, and a great complement to activities of editors in general and offline too. What bothers me is just the specific assertion that as a rule Chapters are "the primary means of organizing the local communities." That's just not the case.Stu 07:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This might be contingent upon our definition of "local communities" and what sort of organizing is being referred to here. I think Galio should be able to clarify more, on what the intention is here. I have always thought, that community > chapters, chapters are an integral part of the community. This might have been interpreted wrong for all I know. The intention there, as I read it was that, chapters are being isolated from the community, and made out to be a separate entity, as if they are not grass-roots organizations in an official capacity, in a multicultural movement. That was my understanding of it. Anyway, let's see what Galio has to say. Regards. Theo10011 07:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I totally agree that community >> chapters. all of us on the organizational side work for the editors. that's where the value comes from in our movement. our job is to support them. one of the things that frustrates me most is when people involved with chapters suggest that just because they have been recognized as a chapter they have a privileged position above editors, or above other parts of our community. admittedly i usually hear this on mailing lists and some people just come across horribly on mailing lists so I guess I shouldn't take it seriously but it's tough not to.Stu 07:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand Stu, I used to have the exact same perception before I saw things from close. I am not affiliated with any chapter, the only identification I used to have was with the editing community, albeit, a semi-active editor community, mostly common with en.wp than others. Chapters can seem to be in a place of privilege from that mentality, but I see their area of work as separate from what editors do. There are all sorts of chapters, active, semi-active, professional, dormant. They don't have to necessarily do activities to support the editors; they are the editors in most cases, with their own geographic/language community to support. In a multicultural, multi-language world like ours, chapters have their own place, there are 100's of different language versions for Wikipedia, Wikisource and so on(not to mention commons)- this world is so huge, that the en.wp editing community sometimes overlooks everything that surrounds it. There is local legislation, open-source activism, GLAM outreach, conferences- that don't exactly support the editors directly, but they do make a great deal of difference in the larger scheme of things. I completely understand your position, but I don't think it's about entitlement or claiming responsibility for the general editing community. Theo10011 07:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I intend to convey below by speaking of serving the projects, and serving them from an additional, absolutely complementary way, such as managing local PR, striving to incorporate further media documents to Commons from national archives, state television and so on, or trying to attract new editors to the Wikimedia projects. We directly serve unaffiliated editors who contact their corresponding chapter willing to carry some initiative or to propose a new project, but chapters have no interference whatsoever in the internal dynamics of the projects' editing communities. Moreso, they adapt to them. --Galio 07:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Stu, perhaps cutting our sentence at the middle wasn't the best thing to do. Here's what our statement reads: "We are worried about statements that seem to differentiate chapters from the community, as if chapters were not the primary means of organizing the local communities in an official, powerful and truly multicultural organizational model". As Theo points out well, we are referring to the organizational, off-wiki, offline side of our movement, to local communities that want to organize themselves —and thus we remark the chapters' model strenghts regarding multiculturalism and internationalization. I know well that community is many times used to refer to the editing community in particular, but here we are using it in the same broad sense the Foundation usually does. We agree that the community is in that sense much larger than Wikimedia chapters, for it includes to start with unaffiliated editors, as well as other stakeholders such as the Foundation, unaffiliated off-wiki enthusiasts and other organizations, both formal and informal. What we wanted to remark is that Wikimedia chapters are part of that community and are in no way different in the sense of being opposed to it —and, as a sidenote, many chapter members are actually affiliated enthusiasts and editors. Theo has already described the role chapters play at the local level so I won't repeat it, but I will repeat my opinion that if a chapter fails to fill that role, if it fails to serve the local community in the broad sense, then we have a proof of their importance, not the contrary —and, of course, that situations should be corrected. That's what we believe should be reassessed and preserved. It's extremely rewarding for us to know that Board members actually read our document, so I take this opportunity to thank you for doing so. --Galio 07:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC) PS: I've just seen your last comment. I do completely agree with you. We are here to serve the projects and nobody in any chapter is above any editor even if he himself is also an editor, both are different spheres of action.

I think it is unfair to suggest that Chapters, because they defend they are a part of -and come from- the wider community, that has to mean that they wish a privileged position as if their opinions should count twice or something like that. It's ridiculous. It's antiwikipedian. Just as we've had drilled into us since we were newbies that an admins' opinion (for instance) has no more value than a non admin when discussing any article's content, a Chapter member does not automatically become a demigod or someone who pretends to "take credit" for everything. That is really unfair, not only because it is not true, but because Chapter people spend a lot of hours promoting the projects and promoting free knowledge in general. As Galio said, different spheres of action. And continuing with the analogy here: if one admin said that his/her opinion about article content should count more because he/she is an admin, that does not mean the entire admin system is broken and all admins are evil and we have to get rid of the admins because they think they rule Wikipedia. I imagine Stu is talking from some experience or other, but my experience is that Chapter people do come from the communities, they respect them, and they wouldn't mess with them. Because they are part of them. Raystorm 15:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is in this document a meaningful omission that can enlighten some insights of Stuart. Wikimedia Brazil is member of Iberocoop but they have not signed it. It seems that it is because due to hurry to publish they had not time to discuss it internally. I am Highly interested in knowing their opinion and thoughts. Reading their conversations it seems that they are much more worried about engaging new editors than in receiving funds. So perhaps this will be difficult but this is why it makes their opinion specially valuable for me. Specially taking into account that It seems they are suffering from the current chapter scheme that difficult their attempts to remedy our biggest problem.--Gomà 09:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have this bad habit of entering the links provided in any argument. :P Could you please explain how you interpret from the last link that Brazil is suffering from the current chapter scheme? Because I am reading something completely different: the convenience of their having or not a mailing list for newbies ("Lista de emails para novatos na Wikipédia"). Thanks. Raystorm 15:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Joan, if they were "suffering" (!) from the chapters model they wouldn't be in the final phases of drafting their bylaws to submit them to the ChapCom, nor would they have spent their last year discussing internal organization and procedures of the future chapter. Indeed, part of the Brazilian community had opted in the past for what they thought as an alternative model (being a mass movement rather than a formal organization). Nevertheless, they don't longer see both things as being mutually exclusive. They can work as a mass movement and still fulfill the role formal organizations do: WMBR will be a Wikimedia chapter with a very interesting internal dynamics. As Castelo says in the email you're linking, they didn't sign because they haven't been following all of this discussion for they were focused on other issues, such as giving the finishing touches to their bylaws. You could also note Wikimedia Colombia and Wikimedia Uruguay didn't sign. They couldn't participate in the discussion or in the drafting of the document and thus it would have been greatly unfair to include them as signatories, even if I'm sure they agree with this statement per what was discussed last June in Buenos Aires. --Galio 17:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I can clarify about Wikimedia Brasil: we didn't signed because we didn't discussed this as a group, and we don't see the 4 members on Iberocoop mailing list as 'representatives', as they don't take decisions in the name of the rest of the group. So, without a discussion, we can't sign anything. I'm happy other Iberocoop members were comprehensive with this. That doesn't mean we don't agree. I just can't say if we agree or not, that's it. Although this is a very important discussion for some of you - and we understand that, so don't take this as a criticism - this discussion is not our priority in this moment. I can only say that because if it was, we would have discussed it. And as you can see in that same thread in our mailing list, this issue had no response (except by Fabio pointing the link to the final document), as i expected. We are promoting activities in Brazil since 2008 without fundraising. But in the last year, and both Iberocoop and Amical has contributed to this, we understood that by being a chapter we can reach more people and we can make more wider activities, that would require management of funds. So, as a natural movement, an organization becomes necessary from now on, and we started to fulfill the requirements. We have contacted ChapCom and are now reviewing the bylaws for submit.

You can have my own - personal - opinion: a chapter is a part of a community, and must try to join as much community members as possible, and *empower them* in order to reflect the community itself. Wikimedia Brasil proposal gives almost no special powers to the Board of the Directors, only legal functions. The decisions themselves will be taken by members, always in wider discussions where everybody is free to participate. This is how we chosen volunteers to the Iberocoop conference, to the Iberocoop mailing list and to the next Chapters Conference. So don't take a single opinion in our mailing as a opinion from all the group. We will always allow/promote diversity of opinions, as this is part of the process. The last link regards to a particular question about the relationship between WMF Educational Program and WMBr one (which involves not only Wikipedia and not only universities), and was followed by an IRC meeting where we choose to use "Wikimedia Brasil Educação" in the name of that new mailing list, in oppose to what was proposed in that message and in despite of a possible use by Campus Ambassador's activities (a WMF Program, supported but independent of the chapter). If anyone has any further questions, feel free to ask. CasteloBranco^msg 19:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Honestly I'm a little ashamed of myself and all of us having this intense debate. I know we still have a future when I see people like you and your Brazilian fellows that have very clear that money is not the priority. You have been doing very good job since 2008 without official recognition. I hope never again any group like yours has to develope its activities without receiving the recognition they deserves and the support they need.--Gomà 22:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Stu, to be fair we should say not only that "Our community existed just fine before we had chapters" but also that "our community existed just fine before we had a Foundation". And, like many editors who have a "shrug and a disinterested look" to the chapters, you can also find very active wikimedians with the same feelings to the Foundation (I can insert references here if you need them). Does those feelings provide an argument to undermine the legitimacy of both chapters and the Fundation? I don't think so. In fact, both are organizational tools that were born from the community to fulfill specific needs of the community. Chapters are not made by strangers: most members, as far as I know, are active wikimedians. Of course, there can be groups of non wikimedians trying to be recognized as a chapter and chapters working isolated from the community: we have the Chapters Committee to prevent and correct these situations. Patricio.lorente 11:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the statement intended to take the credit of the publishing community, Stu. I wish that you clarify where in the statement was given to understand that. If that happens in other chapters or in ours, needless to say or in ours. We understand how the movement and function that is before the Community, in addition to all of us in Iberocoop, we are active editors. We favor the development of a diverse and wide community, as Iberocoop itself. --ProtoplasmaKid 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I didn't take part in the drafting of the document and I read it with "fresh eyes", I have to say that I agree completely with Galio and Raystorm above (nothing to add to theirs, Patricio's and ProtoplasmaKid's statements above): it's impossible to understand where Stu's reading comes from. It seems indeed that something is trying to put chapters and the community in opposition, this is very clear. It's less clear how this hidden force making us read only he first half of sentences and creating other "misunderstandings" everywhere works and can be stopped. Nemo 20:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Stu, if you ever think a chapter is trying to take credit for the work of editors, you can safely assume you have misunderstood. I can't imagine any chapter doing that. The "primary means of organizing" comment wasn't perfectly worded, but I think it was very clear from context that it was referring to organizing offline activities, not the creation of content on the projects. --Tango 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thing. I am wikipedist (more than 5 years old, more than 5000 editions -almost 6000-, only in Wikipedia:es, 1 featured article, several good articles). Also I'm wikimedist, a member of a chapter. Almost all the Wikimedia España members can say the same thing. It's meant that we are a community members besides chapters members. I am afraid that not they all those who lift their voices poor on the others can say the same thing.--Marctaltor 12:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue here is what the role of chapters should be vis-a-vis the general Wikipedia community, other individuals and organizations who wish to work with Wikipedia and the Foundation itself. Simply put, we have a question of power here, not so much money per se (though the two are never completely separate). Legally and organizationally, chapters are separate which is a double edged sword. It allows flexibility, including the flexibility of the Foundation to associate or not with a chapter but it also gives the Foundation limited authority over a chapter, which, lets say, decides not to follow Wikipedia values in some way. This is what the statement "We are worried about statements that seem to differentiate chapters from the community, as if chapters were not the primary means of organizing the local communities in an official, powerful and truly multicultural organizational model". really touches on. Sue has noted that there have been practices appearing in chapters, such as signing exclusivity agreements that the Foundation is very much against. In the Foundation's view, chapters exist to facilitate contacts among Wikipedians, the Foundations and partner organizations, not control who can or cannot approach whom. There have been notations that one needs a chapter to be the only one to approach national level organizations so that there aren´t multiple contacts as a counter to this. While logical on the one hand, there have been problems with this model with those gaining such power (de-facto) using it to limit others' ability to contribute. I dont think the issue really is taking credit for individual editors' work in Wikipedia as chapters cannot control what happens in the site, but through political positioning, chapters now can try to "be the Foundation" in their geographies. Of course, such a thing is not in the Foundation's best interest and is probably not be in the best interest of non-chapter affiliated Wikipedians. Interesting thing is that even if the Foundation decides that all money for chapter activities will come from them, it will not resolve this issue. Most activities do not require large sums of money, but they do require a sense of cooperation and a general agreement of how everyone is supposed to work together.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Looking back at the statements a month later, this was a most helpful statement and discussion. Thanks to the drafters for their work, and for getting input from so many members of Iberocoop. –SJ talk   19:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)