Talk:Movement roles/Current players and their roles

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

General remarks[edit]

There is some nice information collected here! I tried to correct some of the mistakes involved, not sure if I caught them all. For example the description of chapcom was not entirely accurate as far as I can judge. Effeietsanders 14:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are several players of the movement where it is more or less difficult to describe them because in many cases information is spread here and there. The idea was getting a global view of Wikimedia actors and roles before starting tying to clarify (and redefine) them. The chapcom info comes from this board resolution: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_chapters_committee/Scope I agree with you it is not entirely accurate. --Gomà 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I can see that it is hard to describe - one of the reasons to start with this process in the first place. Thank you for collecting the info in any case, it gives a good and helpful start for discussions, but also immediately provides insight which information is not clear out there. Clear, centralized descriptions might be a helpful improvement in the future and something to remember. Effeietsanders 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope[edit]

I really think the scope undertaken by this page is beyond what we need to address. Changes to the Board structure, etc. is really not within the purview of this group. Things like OTRS and researchers being taken as separate entities is also making this more complicated. For all interred purposes, lets consider OTRS as extension of volunteer group, it doesn't need to be re-categorized or re-arranged. Theo10011 14:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Info removed[edit]

In the first versions of this page there was an estimation of the number of people participating in each player. I think it is relevant to define their roles and the way to perform them. In the case of chapters and other groups the first info shows chapters size variability:

  • 2.594 members in total of which 1.760 correspond to 7 Chapters (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and United Kingdom). The other 834 are distributed among the other 25 chapters.

The second info showed the potential of other groups to mobilize energies:

Those figures bring light to one of the final proposals:

  • Recommend that the participation and influence of the chapters and the groups be proportionate to its contributions and results and not only to the fact of being chapter or not.

--Gomà 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think figures are useful, but we should then also make sure to compare apples with apples and not with pears. Becoming an official member is of course a different thing than being a supporter. The chapters might also have many more supporters than members. In the case of Amical, I think it would be more helpful to compare the actual number of paying members with the chapters than the number of "supporters" on a wiki page - since chapters have no such page that doesn't mean they have no supporters. For Mutirões (it was renamed because there is also an initiative to found an actual chapter now) such a category does not seem to exist - but the number of people actively participating in regular meetings might be a useful number to use then. That is, if you want to actually compare the numbers. If the numbers are just to indicate there is more than just chapters - this is fine although indication of the apples/pears issue would be helpful. Effeietsanders 08:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea is grasp the dimension of each player and their diversity which helps to devise how it can be organized. I agree we can not compare readers, donors, members of chapters, supporters of chapters to be, supporters of other groups .... I agree those would be like comparing pears with apples. If we want a comparative to get an idea of the potential of new models not yet recognized we can plunge in the early chapter creation pages and take a look at the supporters they had before being recognized. --Gomà 23:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frist of all the multiroes page is not a inscription page. That is one project inside Campus Party (if i'm not mistaken) who need previous inscription. that does not show that people support mutiores at all, so i removed because have that in the page is a lie.
About WMCAT: CAn you prove that all those people who suppor the creation of a chapter in Catalonia also support and are members of Amical? If yes, please show the proves and we reinsert that in the page. Béria Lima msg 09:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal by[edit]

Hi,

for now, I renamed the "proposal" chapter of the page, because apparently some people were confusingly assuming this was the final proposal of the working group. It is a good piece for discussion, but I guess everybody agrees it is not the outcome of the international discussions :) Gomà, could you please rename it to another description if the current is inaccurate? (I know there was a whole group of people behind it, but I am unsure how to describe them). Effeietsanders 08:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the outcome of a working group but it is true that it was me who proposed the changes. But this is a wiki I don't' feel it is neither my proposal nor the proposal of the group I gathered. Everybody is free to edit change improve anything they want. I feel honored by you putting my name there but I fear this can prevent other people from editing it. There are a lot of pages in the movement roles project and up to my understanding none of them is the final proposal. Perhaps a general comment at the main page of the movement roles would be more appropriate.--Gomà 23:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already saw a board candidate referring to this as the MR proposal, hence ;-) If you know a more appropriate wording for the chapter title, great - but I think its origin should be reflected there somehow (not necessarily your name, but it was the best I could come up with at the moment) Effeietsanders 23:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roles of other gorups not recognized as chapters.[edit]

I move here the edit done by Beria changing "can perform exactly the same roles as the chapters" by "can perform some roles as the chapters".

In the edit comment he said: "Other groups not recognized as Chapters: Fundraising is restricted to chapters, and logos trademarks and some other jobs are specific to Chapters. I know how much you want to say they are the same, Gomà, but they aren't)"

I am not interested in discussing neither the wording of the page nor what I want.

But I am interested in distinguishing among roles and tools to perform those roles. From my point of view the roles "can" be exactly the same.

Having an agreement to use the trademarks is a tool not a role. Having access to share information with other groups in annual meetings is a tool not a role. The money obtained from fund raising is a tool to help you performing the roles.

I think that the roles are like: signing agreements with the educational authorities to bring wikipedia at schools, or organizing workshops to teach editing Wikipedia, or advocating in favor of Wikipedia and free knowledge in TV... Of course not all chapters perform all roles but they can. In fact everybody can. This is free knowledge and we don't need any permission from anybody.

Finally regarding fund raising to do things in the off line world you need money and all those groups are fund raising. --Gomà 00:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you said: "the roles can be exactly the same". But they aren't right now. If you think they should be the same, create a proposal for that, discuss that with the group, and if get that approval, i myself will insert that in the page, until there there sorry but that can't stay in a section called "Current players and their roles". Béria Lima msg 09:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I say can it is because not all players perform all the roles. In the case of Amical Viquipèdia they actually are the same in the sense of roles I was commenting. The differences don’t come from the roles but from the tools they don't have yet access to.--Gomà 09:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]