Talk:Movement roles/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Chapters and more[edit]

I’m not sure if this is the best place to for the following comments and proposals but as I see the movement roles working group is addressing the issues related to redefining and clarifying the chapters, the ChapCom and other entities I think it is better to put them here than open another page.

Comments[edit]

  1. The new members of ChapCom are elected by existing members and their discussions are all removed from the view of the community.
  2. The fact that the name of chapters be Wikimedia XXXXX allows the creation of private entities independent from WMF using the name “Wikimedia”. If in the future any of them no longer is a chapter it still could bear the name Wikimedia.
  3. The goal of several chapters is not limited to the promotion of the Wikimedia projects. When giving them participation in fundraising in some way should be assured that the money given by the donors is devoted only to Wikimedia projects.
  4. The concepts of "National Chapter" (used but not established anywhere) and "Sub-national chapter" have some political connotations that do not benefit the Wikipedian movement. There are no Chapters (for national chapters) or sub-chapters (for sub-national chapters) all of them are chapters and all are equal.
  5. There are a number of chapters that in the particular sense that Chapcom interprets Board resolutions can not be made official. Some of them are just expressions of interest here and there but other have made quite activities and have a strong community support for example the case of Brazil with 492 supporters or Catalan with 452 supporters.
  6. The chapters are reaching increasingly useful tools to promote projects. The projects not promoted by any chapter or the territories without any chapter will be in a seriously disadvantaged position.
  7. Community projects are organized by language and chapters by territories. In some cases the two concepts coincide in others do not.
  8. Except for Switzerland, the current chapters are mainly monolingual. The Indian chapter is presently making some very interesting efforts in setting another multilingual experience.
  9. The relationship and communication between the chapters and communities seems that often is weak. See presentation at Wikimania related to conflicts between chapters and communities.
  10. Some of the chapters' actions that affect the community at large such as the election of board members designated by chapters are completely opaque to the community.

Proposed changes[edit]

  1. That all members of the Chapters Committee be elected by the board among candidates proposed by the communities. That the profiles of candidates and the discussions for their election be made public.
  2. That only be kept private the Chapters Committee discussions when containing personal data or negotiations with institutions external to Wikimedia movement, that all others can be read publicly.
  3. That the official name of chapters not be allowed to contain the word Wikimedia and that the operative name Wikimedia XXX only is granted under the contract of chapter or section if this contract is not renewed cease to have permission to use it.
  4. That the money collected by chapters on fundraising campaigns and grants from the WMF be only allowed to use to promote the Wikimedia projects and that their management should be transparent. That all receipts and payments be recorded on a public page where only personal data is excluded.
  5. Erase the concepts of national and subnational and require only the existence of a legal system allowing them to operate legally in the territory where they intend to serve.
  6. As the chapter name already has a deeply rooted political connotation create another name for organizations that are not tied exactly to the borders of a single state or don't follow the interpretation done by ChapCom of the rules to create a chaper; for example “Sections“ but with exactly the same characteristics as chapters. That wherever it is now said "chapters" say "chapters and sections".
  7. Set up in the map of chapters and sections the double dimension linguistic and territorial. The chapters and sections have to operate with the confidence of the community of the projects they wish to promote. Give only the status of chapters or sections for the communities that have earned their trust. So if WM xxx gets the confidence of the community of the projects in French but not in Esperanto, give them the status of Wikimedia Chapter in xxx for French but not for Esperanto. Although a region already has a chapter or section for a language that there could be awarded another chapter or section to promote the projects in another language although territories overlap.
  8. That the chapters and sections have to report their activities regularly to the village pumps of the projects in the languages of the communities they serve.
  9. That only be kept private the discussions of chapters between them when containing personal data or negotiations with institutions external to Wikimedia movement, that all others can be read publicly. Specifically those addressed to elect members of the Board appointed by the Chapters.
  10. That in the Chapters meetings anybody be admitted. Without voice nor vote if they are not members.
  11. That chapters and sections be obliged to yearly renew the confidence of each language community they are serving as a requirement to renew the chapters agreement.

--Gomà 22:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks Gomà for the very thoughtful comments above. I expect that the movement roles process will take this up for discussion and I hope that you'll continue to engage and help us think through the implications of the proposed changes. --Bnewstead 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I also thank Joan Gomà for the clarity and validity of his points. The same solution not necessarily works in all the contexts and the definition of chapters have to have this into consideration. The key element for me (more than having a unique format) is that the chapters create value, that is the developing of activities and full filling of the goals of the chapter. Not create an artificial and fix schedule format, but maintain a feedback of what is actually happening. The systematization of experiences and exchange between chapters is also key in order to increase tolerance and mutual understanding --Lilaroja 18:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome Bnewstead and Lilaroja. As stated at the beginning I am not sure if this is the best place. Up to my understanding the end of movement roles is to write a charter clarifying the roles of the different players in the wikimedia movement. I agree with Lilaroja that those roles should be fuzzy enough to give each one of the chapters, projects, groups etc the capacity to innovate and adapt themselves to local realities.
But what I am proposing here, more than defining roles is about defining rules. Independently of the concrete role of ChapCom, chapters, comunities of the projects, Foundation etc I am proposing concrete decisions to: 1) Provide the maximum transparency (compatible with confidentiality for things that must be confidential) in Chapcom and chapters activities. 2) Give voice to communities in decisions like selecting ChapCom members and granting and renewing the chapter status to associations and groups. 3) Provide the chapters with the double dimension territorial and linguistic to allow 2 and facilitate 1.
Perhaps the best place is a request for comment.
--Gomà 08:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I have extracted the key points and created a Request For Comments. --Gomà 11:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Status of groups while in process of recognition[edit]

To be chapters create a page on meta where they design a logo and put the trademark Wikimedia xxx. They use this trademark to promote their candidacy and this can produce as an outcome that when media see it identify them with this in the news. Everybody understand it and nobody complains. What happens with this new groups?

I say this because Wikimedia CAT is one of this proposals of chapter that is thinking in changing the proposal to one of this new groups like Partner Organization. While we were just a proposal of chapter we had no problem but as soon as the Partner Organization thing has appeared, immediately Spanish Chapter sent us a mail requiring us to withdraw our use of Wikimedia CAT to promote our candidacy as we are doing in meta and giving us as example an information appeared in an Italian newspaper where they reproduced the expression we have in meta.--Gomà 22:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a few questions here:
1) Can groups that are requesting chapter status talk about themselves on meta (and in those proposals) as 'Wikimedia FOO'? I think yes.
2) What is the proper term to refer to such a group before it becomes a chapter? I think 'FOO Wikimedians' if there isn't a different more descriptive name for the group. It might help to have a default logo for these groups using the community mark.
3) What happens when someone in the media uses the wrong term to refer to the group? A quiet correction; though it is always hard to get reporters to change mistakes. Ideally the proposal pages would make it clear that the FOO Wikimedians (logo) are requesting the formation of a chapter, to be called 'Wikimedia FOO (proposed logo)'.
4) Would Partner Organizations also be called 'Wikimedia FOO' by default? Unclear; these standards are part of the ongoing discussion.
SJ · talk | translate 06:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with you, just a comment to the 4th question about the ongoing discussion. I think we should reduce the differences of treatment between groups promoting Parner Organizations and groups promoting chapters to the minimum necessary due to their characteristics.--Gomà 08:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I do not have the impression that the email from WMES and the proposal are directly related, but rather coincidental.
1) I think that this is reasonable, as long as it is likely that they will achieve this status within reasonable time. Otherwise it should not be done because then it will only add to the confusion.
2) When it is really a chapter proposal that is in the process currently (Such as the candidate chapter Wikimedia Canada) I usually refer to them as candidate chapter, or proposed chapter. " Wikimedians in" I usually reserve for groups like the Wikimedians in Kansai and possibly Amical.
3) The media make lots of mistakes all the time about our organizational structure. I wouldn't worry too much about it (sometimes they report us as Wikimedia Foundation Netherlands etc) even our own community members do that. I would handle that on a case by case basis.
4) Personally I would be in favor of clear naming conventions. Calling only chapters "Wikimedia TLD" would be definitely the clearest. But there is some flexibility in here how to handle it outside that. I think that Amical chose a wonderful solution, "friends of" clearly states the group, sounds natural and descriptive. Effeietsanders 13:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The email from WMES and the proposal are not at all related. Can a chapter-to-be call itself Wikimedia Foo on meta? Sure. Can it misrepresent itself as a Wikimedia chapter in the media or elsewhere using registered trademarks? Absolutely not. Especially if there already is an existing chapter in that country that does have said permission. Thus the requests for clarification. Trying to play it as anything else will not fly, you know. Raystorm 18:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)