Talk:Movement roles/Summary/Models: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Mike Peel in topic No hierarchy among groups
Content deleted Content added
→No hierarchy among groups: does need to be some mechanism for ensuring support/approval of overlapping groups. |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== No hierarchy among groups == |
== No hierarchy among groups == |
||
Ideally, there would be no hierarchy among these four kinds of groups, even though some may be more formal than others. Neither should one type of group play a gatekeeping function within a geography or in other ways. Thoughts? What does this mean in practice? [[User:Bishdatta|Bishdatta]] 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC) |
Ideally, there would be no hierarchy among these four kinds of groups, even though some may be more formal than others. Neither should one type of group play a gatekeeping function within a geography or in other ways. Thoughts? What does this mean in practice? [[User:Bishdatta|Bishdatta]] 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
: Although I'm all for not having hierarchies, I think there does need to be some sort of procedure in place to ensure that organisations that are overlapping in their activities (whether they are geographical or topical) are supporting (and approving of) each other rather than working in opposition, or duplicating activities. E.g. if there was the hypothetical "GLAM Wikimedians" partner organisation, then they should be working with chapters in the various geographies where they exist so that both can avoid re-approaching GLAM organisations that are already working with the other; are sharing appropriate contacts; etc. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:06, 9 October 2011
No hierarchy among groups
Ideally, there would be no hierarchy among these four kinds of groups, even though some may be more formal than others. Neither should one type of group play a gatekeeping function within a geography or in other ways. Thoughts? What does this mean in practice? Bishdatta 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Although I'm all for not having hierarchies, I think there does need to be some sort of procedure in place to ensure that organisations that are overlapping in their activities (whether they are geographical or topical) are supporting (and approving of) each other rather than working in opposition, or duplicating activities. E.g. if there was the hypothetical "GLAM Wikimedians" partner organisation, then they should be working with chapters in the various geographies where they exist so that both can avoid re-approaching GLAM organisations that are already working with the other; are sharing appropriate contacts; etc. Mike Peel 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)