Hello all, Good to hear your thoughts. I'll share with you how I see what is going on and how we could tackle the issues mentioned on the previous messages. First, let me summarize below the Brazilian Chapter's history, for those unaware of it:
1. From April to August 2008 the bylaws have been openly discussed and collaboratively translated into English by a group of 13 people<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Bylaws#Thanks_to...>. All the steps were constantly communicated to the remaining group<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil/Participantes&diff=1154643&oldid=1148591>of around 35 people interested in helping the local chapter. 2. In September and October the Chapters Committee and the Board of Trustees approved the bylaws. 3. In October a group of less than 5 people (including Beria Lima, Porantim and Luis Augusto) decided to make new suggestions for the text of the already approved bylaws. The discussion of this alternative content was opened on Meta<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2>, but very little people participated so far (less than 10 people, including some from the mailing-list) and the opinions on the matter are still divided among them. 4. In November, Jimmy Wales came to Brazil and the press reported the existence of a local chapter, formed by volunteers only and open to anyone interested to be part of it. The list of potential volunteers jumped to more than 120 people<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Participantes>after it. 5. So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a group of Wikimedia representatives. There are, on the other hand, many dedicated volunteers working together in different projects. For instance, the event/debate with the presence of Jimmy Wales was organized by some of these volunteers and it has not used Wikimedia trademarks. As far as I understand, there are 3 main issues being discussed. I'll share below my point-of-view on each subject: A. Changes to the bylaws B. Participation of non-wikimedians and hostile behavior C. Risk of potential illicit activities *A. **Changes to the bylaws* The discussion is still open, but so far very few people participated and the opinions are divided. My opinion has been that there could be a deadline, when either there are enough people willing to change the bylaws, or the approved version could be used to create a legal entity for the local chapter. In my opinion, we could agree on a two-month period and a target of at least the same number of people willing to submit a new version as there was for the already approved first version. *B. **Participation of non-wikimedians and hostile behavior* Any hostile behavior or obstacles for participation of non-wikimedians should ever be accepted within the Wikimedia community. Everybody should be able to join and contribute politely to the promotion of Wikimedia's mission and vision. And the community of volunteers in Brazil will select its legal representatives only when a General Meeting of the future local chapter happens. As long as there is no such meeting, the community will be formed of volunteers only. *C. **Risk of potential illicit activities* Due to concerns already raised and the local context for NGOs, I agree that an independent auditing firm should be hired to evaluate the financial statements that will be presented by the local chapter. Although it may be expensive, the local community could agree on this initiative in order to avoid any risk. There is also the possibility of establishing a local pro-bono relationship with KMPG, Wikimedia Foundation's auditing firm. Please feel invited to join the Brazilian Chapter's Mailing-list<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/WikimediaBR-l>(at least temporarily, if you prefer) and to visit the pages on Meta <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil>, where everything has been openly discussed. All my personal information and contacts have always been public on Meta, but I share it once again if anyone feels like further discussing privately (skype thomasbuckupbrasil, phone 5511 9213 3931). Abracos, Thomas On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Whitworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Béria Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in > > brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every > > wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo. > > The problem is that there isn't any real way to judge these situations > prior to chapcom approval. When we get bylaws from a chapter group, we > only know the things that we've been told about the organization, and > the things we've heard by chance. We don't do any kind of > investigation, or go out of our way to solicit feedback from the > community. We also don't have a strict requirement that new chapters > contain any number of active wikimedians. Red flags obviously go up if > we find a group that doesn't contain any, but I'm not sure such a > group couldn't get approved if they tried hard enough under the > current system. > > Something like a public hearing over all new bylaws would help to > eliminate these problems, assuming active wikimedians attended such > meetings and raised objections. Of course, having to schedule and > organize such a meeting, even a virtual one over IRC, would > dramatically increase the amount of time that it takes for bylaws to > clear the committee. The Brazil group would have even made this more > difficult because they made it clear to us that they were under time > pressure due to Jimmy's visit. So many chapters have told us that > significant delays in approval by the chapcom and the board have a > chilling effect on a chapter, sometimes an insurmountable one because > of lost enthusiasm and momentum. > > The closest solution that I can imagine, and I'm not speaking as a > chapcom member right now, would be to create chapters in some sort of > probationary status for a year or so, before they become "official". > This way we could identify those groups that don't meet our > expectations in practice (as opposed to the "on paper" review they get > now) and rescind their status because of that. It might be worthwhile > for the community to review exactly what requirements are needed to > become and to remain a chapter. > > > Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try > > that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the > > argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is" > > Chapters are independent organizations and do not need chapcom/WMF > approval to change their bylaws. As Michael says, we usually like to > hear about changes, just as we like to hear about any other news from > chapters. If we become aware of changes that are highly negative we > might review them to see that the chapter still meets our > expectations, but this has never happened so I am only speculating. We > simply don't have the infrastructure to keep track of every change > made by every chapter to their bylaws, their operating procedures, or > their membership composition. > > The chapcom is definitely going to discuss this issue, but lots of > feedback and ideas will be appreciated. > > --Andrew Whitworth > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Thomas de Souza Buckup [EMAIL PROTECTED] +5... +5... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
