? I agree with a basic
> charter for each group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular
> reporting) seems bureaucratic and pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to
> control but rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let
> these groups name themselves.
&
an way to
> control but rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let these
> groups name themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Anders Wennersten
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 12:03:5
Anders Wennersten wrote:
> I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
> definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
> recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
>
> I would suggest we
> 1. come up with a name for these types of grou
__
> From: Anders Wennersten
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 12:03:53 AM
> Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]
>
> I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
> definition of entiti
these groups name
themselves.
From: Anders Wennersten
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 12:03:53 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]
I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
I don't think we need to formalize these kinds of groups at all, unless they
want the same kind of official support that chapters get. The core of
Wikimedia is self-organizing, ad hoc groups, so what possible purpose would
it serve to build additional rules and conventions around them if they're
no
I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
I would suggest we
1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
"Associates of
