Talk:Wikimedia affiliation models/Summary

Outstanding issues are noted below.

Names of affiliates[edit]

All in agreement that the names "chapters, partner, affiliates and associations" are often misleading, especially when translated.

Proposals to change the names are being discussed and include:

For chapters: keep the name Chapter or National and Sub-National Chapter

For partner organisations: Thematic Organisations

For associations: [Special Interest] Groups seems to be the consensus

For affiliates: keep the name Affiliates or Official Partner Organisations.

See lengthy discussion and summary.
Bishdatta (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, a suggestion: National Wikimedia Organisation (or chapter for short); Thematic Wikimedia Organisation, Wikimedia Group and Official Wikimedia Partners. I would like to drop the Official because there shouldn't be 'unofficial' ones, but we have many cooperations and all those institutions don't become immediately Official. Maybe even Official Wikimedia Group? (I tend to avoid the single use of Wikimedia because then it is not clear whether it is Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia Nederland.) Ziko (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, at a minimum, retaining the "chapter" label for the use of national and sub-national organizations, even if another name is used internally within the affiliation models documents; a significant amount of time and money has been spent on branding and marketing the "Wikimedia chapter" concept, and I think it would be rather wasteful to throw that investment away. Kirill (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Wikimedia User Groups" (akin to the ubiquitous "Linux User Groups") or "Wikimedia Interest Groups" would be more descriptive than "Wikimedia Groups"?

If we're moving away from using "association" for the third category, could we perhaps use it for the second category. Rather than "Thematic Wikimedia Organisations" or the like (which I think might be a bit cryptic to someone not familiar with the full range of affiliation models), we could have "Wikimedia[n] Associations" (such as, for example, "Association of GLAM Wikimedians", "Association of Wikimedia Administrators", and so forth)? Kirill (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring and support[edit]

Who will take responsibility for this? See comments.
Bishdatta (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AffCom until recognition; Chapters Council afterwards; the WMF should take responsibility for providing mentoring if the others cannot for any reason. –SJ talk 08:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of recognition[edit]

Who takes responsibility? Using what criteria?
Bishdatta (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to see this question asked during a design process, rather than after the fact. I don't think there's anything more important in our movement's interpersonal and inter-organizational dynamics than establishing clarity on how this sort of decision gets made. Looking forward to seeing answers emerge. I'll try to put some thought into it myself and post here, but since I don't have a formal affiliation I'm not sure how relevant my opinion is on a major question like this. -Pete F (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do post your thoughts - this is a movement-wide discussion, it is not necessary to have a formal affiliation to share your opinion. :) Bishdatta (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]