I also like this approach *On most informal level - a Working Group, carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited agreement/recognition letter with the Foundation *On intermediate level - a legally recognized organizations that could support an interest group, the organisation either being dedicated to the groups activity or being a supporting organization "hosting" the groups activities. In either case it should be possible to get an agreement in place without the full demands required for being recognized as a Chapter. The Catalonian effort and any Blind wikipedian could go with the second level of partnership
Groups in an early phase to become a chapter could go with the first (time defined review would in these cases be good in order to review the progress to become a full chapter) Anders Delphine Ménard skrev: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 04:11, Pharos<pharosofalexand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think a possible solution for this kind of thing might be "Working >> Groups", each carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer" >> who has a time-limited charter to lead such a group. >> >> The issue here is that when dealing with a small unorganized group, >> really the only practicable way to maintain communication and >> accountability is through an individual. >> >> This would be the type of structure that from my experience would work >> best with embryonic local efforts crystallizing in something like a >> "Wikimedia Working Group for Tennessee", and I could also see it >> working with supra-local efforts like "Wikimedia Working Group for >> Catalan". >> > > The issue here is that, in the Catalan case for example, the effort is > already beyond just a "working group". You have a group of people who > are more than mature to have their own organisation and make it > succesful. What they lack is "legitimity" under the Wikimedia banner > in order to talk to potential donors who would support their efforts > if they only had "the name". > > >> Of course, the "Working Group Organizer" can and should delegate >> activities to other trusted persons, but the overall responsibility >> (and the blame if things somehow go horribly wrong) is theirs. >> > > I find this idea interesting, it fits in the smaller "partnership > scheme" which entails giving letters of recommandation or support for > a specific group, as well as maybe in the "chapters to be" scheme. > > > > Delphine > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
