Mailing List Archive

On 5/25/06, Finne Boonen <finne@cassia.be> wrote:

> > Yes, but Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are so small that a coordination
> > among different chapters with the same language could be helpful.
>
> Do explain why Dutch and French are suddenly the same language, or
> Italian and Dutch?

I believe you misunderstood Florence here.

"different chapters *with* the same language" never meant that the
chapters have *only* one language." What she meant is that some
different chapters already/will/can have languages in common, not that
the Belgian or the Swiss *should* be French-speaking only.

Delphine
--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 26/05/06, valdelli@bluemail.ch <valdelli@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> Do you mean about Belgium? Because a chapter is nation-based and not
> language-based,
> as you can see in Wikimedia CH (German, French, Italian, Romansh and
> Alemmanisch
> former Wikipedians in same chapter).
>
> Ilario
>

Well since our projects are language and not country based it surely
makes some sense to base our bureaucracy on a language basis no?

paz y amor,
-rjs.

--
DO NOT SEND ME WORD ATTACHMENTS - I *WILL* BITE!
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html>

Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> [broken]
Jab me: <robin.shannon@jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to kubuntu linux: <http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/>
Faith is under the left nipple. -- Martin Luther
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robin Shannon a écrit :
> On 26/05/06, valdelli@bluemail.ch <valdelli@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>> Do you mean about Belgium? Because a chapter is nation-based and not
>> language-based,
>> as you can see in Wikimedia CH (German, French, Italian, Romansh and
>> Alemmanisch
>> former Wikipedians in same chapter).
>>
>> Ilario
>>
>
> Well since our projects are language and not country based it surely
> makes some sense to base our bureaucracy on a language basis no?

A pragmatic issue is that associations/foundations follow national laws,
not international guidelines as in P2P or distributed project. The same
prevails for local parterniship and so on.

--- Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> That was my first thought, too, but I don't think this direction is
> necessarily right. First of all, you end up with another legal body
> with another to-be-(s)elected group of representatives: more
> bureaucracy. More importantly, cooperations between chapters are
> likely going to be an "ad hoc" thing:
> - "Let's have an Eastern Europe meeting."
> - "Let's cooperate between DE and AT for a media campaign."
> - "Let's start a metadata project for digitized documents in Croatian
> and Serbian."
> - "Let's approach a Commonwealth organization for a grant."

Good point for things like a Wikimedia Balkans (where no nation or nation-like body exists that
covers that area), but I don't agree for things like a Wikimedia Europa, where a such a body does
exist (a confederation of nations that is growing closer together and has many laws and
representatives of its own). But in reality, this is up to a combination of popular support in
various areas and what the board will allow as an *official* chapter.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/25/06, Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well since our projects are language and not country based it surely
> makes some sense to base our bureaucracy on a language basis no?

Chapters exist to facilitate Wikimedia efforts in geographically local
areas, and have nothing at all to do with projects in languages their
members may happen to speak. They're independent entities with no
place in the "bureaucracy" of actually running the Wikimedia projects.

The organization of a chapter is closely tied to its legal status in
its respective country—its ability to raise funds, organize events,
and generally act as an incorporated entity is based wholly on that
status. There's no way a transnational organization could operate as
efficiently (if at all) in in carrying out the duties that define a
"local chapter"; that's why they exist in the first place.

Austin
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robin Shannon wrote:
> Well since our projects are language and not country based it surely
> makes some sense to base our bureaucracy on a language basis no?

Not necessarily. Local chapters serve local needs, and therefore need
to be in tune with local matters, local laws, etc.

In some cases, I think we will have some chapters which cover more than
one nation. I think that Serbia/Croatia should go this route, but
acknowledge that there are significant counter-arguments, but in any
event all of the people commenting, including me, I think we all agree
that it should be left up to those local communities to figure out what
makes the most sense for them.

In other cases, we will have chapters which cover only parts of some
nations. For example, a 'U.S. local chapter' makes no sense because the
US is much much too big and diverse for that to be sensible. I can
easily imagine an "eastern seaboard" chapter, a "california" chapter,
etc. How to draw those lines, and why, well.... too early to speculate
since no one has really tried to form one yet. :)





--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>In other cases, we will have chapters which cover only parts of some
>nations. For example, a 'U.S. local chapter' makes no sense because the
>US is much much too big and diverse for that to be sensible. I can
>easily imagine an "eastern seaboard" chapter, a "california" chapter,
>etc. How to draw those lines, and why, well.... too early to speculate
>since no one has really tried to form one yet. :)
>
>
The U.S. is also somewhat unique in that it doesn't have a need for a
separate "Wikimedia U.S." to fill legal beaurocratic roles, because the
global Wikimedia Foundation is already headquartered in the U.S. and
subject to U.S. law, so can fill any of those roles itself (tax-exempt
donations, applying for U.S. grants, etc.).

I suppose for consistency's sake we could have the same setup in the
U.S., but from a pragmatic perspective it seems that as long as U.S.
Wikimedians trust the Wikimedia Foundation to handle the accounts and
legal aspects, the same effect could be accomplished just by having
non-incorporated/informal associations of U.S. Wikimedians do everything
a local foundation would normally do except for the legal aspects,
thereby avoiding legal and beaurocratic duplication.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> … but in any
> event all of the people commenting, including me, I think we all agree
> that it should be left up to those local communities to figure out what
> makes the most sense for them.

I believe this is documented (somewhere) as Wikimedia policy, but even
if not, it's the undisputed consensus of those involved with such
decisions. It's certainly not for us to object if the Serbs get
together with the Croat community and decide to form a broader
organization, or if individual Bosnians simply want to join the
Serbian chapter (which they can, even now).

> In other cases, we will have chapters which cover only parts of some
> nations. For example, a 'U.S. local chapter' makes no sense because the
> US is much much too big and diverse for that to be sensible. I can
> easily imagine an "eastern seaboard" chapter, a "california" chapter,
> etc. How to draw those lines, and why, well.... too early to speculate
> since no one has really tried to form one yet. :)

I could personally see, at least initially, something along the lines
of the Writers Guild of America—but as you say, so far it's only been
discussed in passing. I've long had this plan to get interested
parties together at Wikimania for some preliminary talk, but I've been
preoccupied with other chapters and organizing the conference itself,
to say nothing of my day job, so it's remained something of a secret
plan.

Now that I've mentioned it, I suppose I actually have to do something about it.

Austin
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/25/06, Austin Hair <adhair@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> > … but in any
> > event all of the people commenting, including me, I think we all agree
> > that it should be left up to those local communities to figure out what
> > makes the most sense for them.
>
> I believe this is documented (somewhere) as Wikimedia policy, but even
> if not, it's the undisputed consensus of those involved with such
> decisions. It's certainly not for us to object if the Serbs get
> together with the Croat community and decide to form a broader
> organization, or if individual Bosnians simply want to join the
> Serbian chapter (which they can, even now).

Just in case this wasn't clear (and I was just told it wasn't), I
still think the whole thing is an insanely bad idea, for reasons I
cover elsewhere in this thread. I'll continue to do everything I can
to personally discourage it, but as a matter of policy it's not our
place to make demands either way.

Austin
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> In other cases, we will have chapters which cover only parts of some
> nations. For example, a 'U.S. local chapter' makes no sense because the
> US is much much too big and diverse for that to be sensible. I can
> easily imagine an "eastern seaboard" chapter, a "california" chapter,
> etc. How to draw those lines, and why, well.... too early to speculate
> since no one has really tried to form one yet. :)

I don't agree with that at all. What we need is a single Wikimedia U.S. chapter that is divided
into semi-autonomous regions. No need at all to duplicate all the incorporation and other issues.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> The U.S. is also somewhat unique in that it doesn't have a need for a
> separate "Wikimedia U.S." to fill legal beaurocratic roles, because the
> global Wikimedia Foundation is already headquartered in the U.S. and
> subject to U.S. law, so can fill any of those roles itself (tax-exempt
> donations, applying for U.S. grants, etc.).

I see the role of the foundation to be outward looking/global and the role of a U.S. chapter to be
focused on establishing connections within the U.S. and providing a club framework. A club in a
particular area, for example, would organize meet-ups whereby members would collect photos and
information from particular areas and for particular events. They would also be points of contact
between Wikimedia and local academic, civic, and non-profit persons and groups.

Wikimedia U.S. would also be a membership organization whereas membership in the parent
organization is hampered by the fact that it only legally exists in one nation.

> I suppose for consistency's sake we could have the same setup in the
> U.S., but from a pragmatic perspective it seems that as long as U.S.
> Wikimedians trust the Wikimedia Foundation to handle the accounts and
> legal aspects, the same effect could be accomplished just by having
> non-incorporated/informal associations of U.S. Wikimedians do everything
> a local foundation would normally do except for the legal aspects,
> thereby avoiding legal and beaurocratic duplication.

There are many areas where the two organizations will not overlap. Making sure to minimize any
unnecessary duplication will be a significant challenge *and* opportunity (each organization can
then focus on their respective strengths). The little bit of duplicated overhead will not pose a
problem once the Wikimedia Foundation hires a proper Executive Director and a couple other
directors to run things (thus giving volunteers like me more time to devote to forming a U.S.
chapter).

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

<valdelli@...> writes:
>
> Do you mean about Belgium? Because a chapter is nation-based and not language-
based,
> as you can see in Wikimedia CH (German, French, Italian, Romansh and
Alemmanisch
> former Wikipedians in same chapter).
>
> Ilario

Actually; if there comes a Wikimedia chapter for Belgium it is relative likely
that it will be "Wikimedia Flanders" and "Wikimedia Wallonia". Or that
a "Wikimedia Belgium" ends up after some time in those.

Greetings,
Walter

[[meta:user:Walter]]



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l