Talk:Affiliations Committee/Archives/2010

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Wikimedia España andd recurring issues with new chapters[edit]

If I remember correctly, Talk:Wikimedia España/Borrador de estatutos and Talk:Wikimedia España/Borrador de estatutos were mentioned by notafish as useful resources of recurring problems with new chapters and submitted mylaws. Maybe a link should be put somewhere. --Nemo 21:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Venezuela (planned)[edit]

Can this committee shed any light at Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Venezuela Wikimedia? The landing page is unclear and provides no contact information, and the links at Wikimedia chapters#Planned chapters and Wikimedia Venezuela are not working. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 23:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the email stated on the first link (mine) works. Also, believe it or not, right now there's some heavy discussion between venezuelans through email to launch the chapter.DamianFinol 12:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I just thought that someone here might be knowledgeable about plans for the chapter, and could provide information to the discussion at the above linked proposal to close ve.wikimedia.org. That discussion seems to be taking place in a vacuum. ~ Ningauble 13:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Regional Arabic Chapter[edit]

Are there any restrictions towards having a regional chapter rather than a local one in a specific country?? The team of the proposed Wikimedia Egypt has been working on a chapter proposal for more than two years now. There are other initiatives in KSA and Algeria but less progressive and inactive at the moment. An Arabic chapter will have acting members from across the Arab world and more importantly will have various funding resources from different private sectors in different countries, a thing that guarantees its freedom from governments and local legislation which could be complicated in certain countries than others. In addition, the number of Arabic Wikimedians is scattered in different Arab countries with no large base in the vast majority of them, while we all contribute to projects that share similar technical issues and political-social challenges. I am currently discussing with a few Wikimedians from Egypt, KSA and others.
Before we expand our discussion: Does the chapter committee have any consideration or reservations towards having a regional chapter?? Any hints of pieces of advice? Thanks --Moushira 13:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, we like chapters to be constrained to politically established boundaries—usually a nation-state, sometimes a smaller area with special circumstances, but always an area in which there is a clear political boundary. This has been the case from day one. I'm eager to see an Arab chapter, because I personally know several dedicated people in a region that's historically underrepresented in the movement, but I don't think a pan-Arab chapter is the best way to go about that. Austin
11:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding Austin. I totally understand the necessity of associating chapters with clear political and geographical boundaries due to its relationship with laws, regulations and the real on-ground activities of the chapter, but in fact, a main reason for this suggestion is providing help to a small number of users (3 or 2) who are active enough to expand the base of contributors in their local communities, yet they need help and guidance on the ground (And this is the case of most Arabic users) . I assume belonging to a regional chapter could be effective and supportive.
I totally understand that it could be not possible, but, do you have an alternative suggestion for providing regional help to users who share Wikimedia projects in similar language?
At the moment, we -scattered users of Arabic Wikimedia- are still discussing the possibilities of having this proposed chapter under the umbrella of the Arab League (AL); meaning having a Chapter headquarter in Egypt in one of the (AL) affiliated institutes while having representatives in Arab country. Would you find to be reasonable, anyway? --Moushira 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi moushira, thank you for your active approach. I agree with Austin that clear political boundaries are important - partially for legal reasons (you want to be clearly situated in one single legal system, to avoid conflicts of law which you have to abide to), second also because of political reasons (We dont want to give the impression we are supporting one or the other side in a conflict). Having a chapter that covers multiple countries has of course numerous practical objections (tax statuses, privacy issues, traveling to board- and membership meetings etc) probably many of those already crossed your minds. The Arab League might be something to explore, but I expect lots of practical problems there because the league is actually pretty loose, and therefore has little overlap in legislation. Considering the high participation at Wikimania 2008 I would however expect that if you put enough effort into it, it should be possible to find 20-30 people active enough in Egypt to found an Egyptian chapter - the odds would be much better there! Wikimedia Egypt could then function as a catalyst and help other chapters-to-be. So what I would see as the most fruitful path is to look at what can be done to help Wikimedia Egypt to get founded or at least get an informal group organize activities - of course of a somewhat smaller scale than Wikimania :) Effeietsanders 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much Effeietsanders for your reply. I understand your concerns, but the dilemma is that with the presence of a sole Egyptian Chapter it will also have the same boundary and law concerns when it comes to acting as a catalyst on the ground, while it will lack the advantage of multi-national funding and support options of the Arabic Chapter. If we assumed that proposed chapters are going to be founded: Tunisian, Moroccan, Saudi, Algerian and Egyptian and more, while they all participate to the same Wikimedia projects, then they also will eventually have to meet up to discuss their issues--pretty much the same concerns if it is one chapter. It might also be a waste of resources to construct different chapters for the same projects where their target of outreach is also the same. I am afraid am not clear on what you mean by how loose the Arabic League is. Politics aside -in our conflict region- the League is trust worthy in education movements; for instance its Academyin Egypt hosts students from different nations and it doesn't follow the rules of Egyptian national universities, even though it is in Egypt. The model also repeats itself with other acting NGOs. Point is: The suggestion is about complicating things, just that at some point we find it selfish to establish a chapter in Egypt (which only needs finalizing serious steps as people and resources are not its problem) while other users contributing to the same Wikimedia projects will not benefit from our backup or support. Now I have two questions:
  1. Will it make a difference if the Arab League has got interest and strategy to help in the issue?
  2. What is the valid option for providing a chapter for scattered users who participate to the same projects while they are almost the sole participants to their projects -since Arabic is not a common second language like English, French or Spanish. IMHO this is what makes this Arabic Chapter different from a suggestion of a Southern American Chapter for instance.
Thanks again for your reply Effeietsanders :) --Moushira 22:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
We are trying to activate and expand user groups in Egypt, north Africa and KSA. Will see how they will work and if we can create a virtual council. Depending on results we can act accordingly! Thanks.--Moushira 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia CAT / Wikimedia ES[edit]

We would like to clarify a couple of e-mail exchanges on the WM ES mailing list. First Florian pointed out that somebody there was claiming that WM CAT misused WMF trademarks and also that WM CAT opposed the WM ES proposal. Then Martorell replied saying that the WM CAT proposal only used WMF trademarks to promote the proposal like any other one does; and that it has supported WM-ES and expected the same support from WM ES, which has not been granted, blaming Delphine's behaviour for this situation. And finally Delphine apologised for her behaviour in Wikimania.

We accept her apologies and also wish to apologise on behalf of the members and supporters of our proposal who made inappropriate comments. They did it due to the frustration they felt seeing the way our proposal was dealt with, without getting advice on how to reshape it in order to be approved and without any mediation between the WM-ES proposal and ours to foster a good relationship and define the rules for mutual cooperation. Nonetheless, those comments were inappropriate and we assure you we will do our best to prevent them from happening again; otherwise our association will apply the disciplinary measures laid out in our regulations.

So, from now on, we hope to enter a new stage where we can start a constructive dialogue with the members of the board to address the recognition of both chapters, in the best way to serve the projects in their respective territories. A stage where we start an open, fair and constructive dialogue between both proposals in order to define the rules of the game with regards to overlap and cooperation.

We would like to be able to count on your help in this dialogue and mediation.--Gomà 22:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Best,notafish }<';> 14:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1.- We belive that Florian’s message intended to show how several people were bothered that WM_CAT supporters tried to misrepresented themselves as an official Chapter. 2.- It’s true that some chapter proposals have used WMF’s logos, but always cleraly iindicating their non-offcial status. Beside, we belive that supporters of WM_CAT should have made known the overlapping problem with WM_ES, which WM_ES has make known.. 3.-Neither ChapCom nor the Board have aks us our side of this spate of event; we have absolutely no problem with providing such information to them. We also haven’t recieve any mediation proposals, nor its content. 4.-Sadly , in the lasts days, the open maling list of WM_ES has been used by supporters of WM_CAT to revile a member of the ChapCom . Due to the severity of the situation we warned them to cease immediately we would take the appropriate legal actions. Frustation cannot be an excuse for poor manners or defamation. We are pleased to hear that you’re going to take the appropriate disciplinary measures. 5.- There’re many pending questions that need to be answer regarding WM_CAT. Such as the matter of potential overlap. There is no such thing as “respective territories”: WM-ES will be working in Valencia, Cataluña and Balearic Islands too, as well as in the rest of Spain. So you see this a complex matter. Best. --Marctaltor 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Marctaltor. On the subject of the recent happenings on the Spanish mailing list, I wish the subject to be closed, once and for all. Apologies have been offered and accepted by all parties involved, this is past and we should keep it behind us. OK? :) Gracias! notafish }<';> 15:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. As you wants. I promise you we never use this, and our desires to forgot all this sad incident. Best.--Marctaltor 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the reviler (excuse my poor english): As Marctaltor said I had a wrong election when I used Wikimedia España list I've have send my apologizes for it to the same list a few days ago.
I don't know why Marctaltor doesn't say it too... perhaps he is reviling WM-CAT supporters?--Mafoso 18:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you do. But after we warned you. And your insinuation about I reviling WM-CAT's supporters it's not offensive because it's rídiculous.--Marctaltor 23:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)