Talk:Wikimedia Chapters Association

Unintended politicization of chapter creation

I'd like to point out a possible problem that I mentioned at the old Meta talk page for the Chapters Council. Discussion should continue there (or be moved here if someone would be bothered to do it). --seav (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Copied. Tomer A. -- Talk 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unintended politicization of chapter creation

If we have a Chapters Council which has decision-making powers and where each chapter has one vote, then that may unintentionally influence the creation of future chapters and may result in large countries (by land area) having multiple votes in the Council. We already see this in the United States having 2 sub-national chapters and thus the United States would have 2 votes in the Council.

A hypothetical example: If a large country were to decide to follow the US model and create chapters organized on a sub-national basis, then people may suspect that the Chapters Council may be a reason, whether or not that is true.

Local Chapters are created in order to best further the Wikimedia mission in a specific geographical jurisdiction. We leave it to the communities who want to become organized as a chapter to decide the geographical scope of their Chapter as long as they are within a single jurisdiction and there's no overlap with existing chapters. Thus, we have no objections to there being a Wikimedia DC and a Wikimedia NYC. However, if there's a Chapters Council, such future sub-national chapters would have the effect of raising eyebrows and put an additional burden on the Chapters Committee to ascertain if such chapters were created with the Chapters Council in mind. --seav (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The same issue already exists with the Chapter Selected WMF Board seats. They are selected using a one-chapter-one-vote system, which does give the US two votes. I agree it is a problem. I'm not in favour of sub-national chapters (Hong Kong is a unique situation and I don't object to that chapter). I think the US should just get its act together and create a national chapter like everyone else has done. It's probably not worth worrying about that now, but it is something the council should probably discuss once it is up and running. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're using a wrong example to express a true concern. IMO what you're afraid of are people registering chapters in order to gain political power over a certain scenario (let that be the WCA or the board selection process). I don't think we should be afraid from the sub-national chapters in the US more than we should be afraid of the people in the Benelux area, the Arab league or the jewish folks. Tomer A. -- Talk 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would like to dwell on a more fundamental aspect of the WCA's constitution here: You cannot just found a local chapter, each chapter has to be registered with the Wikimedia Foundation. So, the WCA would leave it to the WMF to decide on the WCA's inner balance of votes. I think this is a bad idea indeed. It would be wise to think about some procedure in order to get more independent from the WMF's leverage here. There could be a restriction by country, or, say, even by continent.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's something needs to be decided now. Tomer A. -- Talk 18:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not, but in the long run.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Logo Needed

Hi, We need a logo to be created. --naveenpf (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Like this? --Tango (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 Thanks Tango --naveenpf (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

logo is indeed needed. The suggested logo includes one of the WMF trademarks. In order to use it the WCA needs to sign a trademark agreement. This is something we only mentioned but haven't started working on yet. Tomer A. -- Talk 13:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I mentioned on the description page when I created the image that it is for demonstration purposes only until permission is received from the WMF. The WMF seems to be very supportive of the WCA, though, so I don't see getting permission being a problem. The name "Wikimedia Chapters Association" includes one of the trademarks too ("Wikimedia"), so permission will be needed whatever logo is chosen. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Time is short and work is much Tomer A. -- Talk 16:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A formal, written trademark agreement between the WCA and the WMF is a lot of work, but I wouldn't worry about that now. Just ask the WMF for interim permission to use the trademarks - they give that permission to chapters so they can start work before all the paperwork is finished, so I expect they would do the same for the WCA. The paperwork can wait until there is a paid secretary-general to do it (they is plenty of other paperwork that you do need to do now!). --Tango (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we can put mail to Geoff -- naveenpf (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait a little with this. Tomer A. -- Talk 11:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A subject best left to the interim SG.Ziko (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

People are correct in pointing out that use of Wikimedia trademarks requires a license from WMF in its capacity as steward of the movement’s marks. This includes any attempt to incorporate under a name using a Wikimedia mark. If you set up a legal entity, we ask that WCA operate under a Wikimedia mark only after it completes the customary steps for recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate. I would suggest that this should involve consultation with AffCom, AffCom’s recommendation to the Board, and the Board approval of AffCom’s recommendation.

WCA is welcome to incorporate under a different neutral name that does not make use of Wikimedia marks. If WCA wishes to use Wikimedia marks preliminarily while WCA is consulting with AffCom, WCA may be able to request a limited, short-term license to legally operate (but not incorporate) as “Wikimedia Chapters Association” until AffCom can make a formal recommendation to the Board. We do encourage WCA to engage in a dialogue with AffCom and WMF and seek guidance for formal recognition by the movement, and we look forward to working with WCA when WCA is ready to request a trademark license.

Thanks, Geoffbrigham (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. We will get in touch with the AffCom immediately for clarification. As there is a strong interest by the WMF that the WCA is established, I do not expect any major difficulties. --Mglaser (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Goeffbrigham, someone from WMF indicated that the WCA can use the trademark and logo as an extension from the rights already given to the chapters. Could that possibly be an intermediate way of reading the rules unless we have clarification by the AffCom? I am trying to avoid unneccessary delays in the WCA incorporation process. --Mglaser (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mglaser, unfortunately not. That would technically be a third-party trademark license, which is not possible under our agreement with the chapters. Thanks for asking. And happy holidays to everyone. Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, there is something to clarify because the trademark policy says that "We encourage the use of the Wikimedia Marks in not-for-profit publicity activities and for associated non-profit organizations to show their association with the Foundation and its projects" so I don't see any opposition in the use of this mark, in my opinion. The opinion of the Affcom may give more "consistency" to this use because it will be permanent, but I don't see any conflict with the trademark policy because the WCA will be a "no profit" association and it supposed that the WCA will not operate in commercial matters. Regards. --Ilario (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a bill of rights

Reading over your Charter and Standing Orders, it seems like there is too much instability in your organization, which could potentially be exploited. Your Standing Orders could be changed at any time and your Charter doesn't contain sufficient protections. You should have, at minimum:

• An explicit numerical/percentage limit on the fees that can be placed on any chapter by the WCA.

• A right of a chapter to disavow responsibility for any obligations (financial or otherwise) placed on it by withdrawing within, say, 60 days.

• More explicit guarantees that when you "pass whatever resolutions necessary", that these won't interfere in chapters' internal affairs.

I'm sure that those of you actually involved can think up more. Please, don't get so caught up in empowering your new organization that you forget what can happen when the wrong people get into power and things go wrong. Wnt (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The WCA is supposed to interfere in the internal affairs of chapters. That's its job. The only right member chapters really need is the right to leave. That could perhaps be reinforced. I really don't think we want a "bill of rights". If you have too many rules, you create too much room for decisions to be made by lawyering, rather than based on their own merits (and you end up with things like US healthcare policy being based on how a bunch of lawyers interpret the exact definition of the word "tax"). I think the WCA is much better off leaving itself flexible enough to deal with new situations appropriately rather than trying to set everything down in stone. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The light-on-your-feet approach of being ready to leave at any time seems at odds with a large budget for buildings and personnel. The problem I see here is that I think you could end up stuck with IRL lawyering. I mean, to give an over-the-top example, suppose Romney throws a dart at a map and invades... Macedonia. Some European chapters elect hard-line peaceniks to represent them, who come to the meeting, vote to set aside the Standing Orders and elect a new chairman, then pass a resolution that the American chapters will give three-fourths of their accumulated and incoming funds to the Macedonian chapter to document the horrors of the war on the ground. The chairman doesn't recognize the American chapters' protests and declarations that they're leaving, and says that the agreement they've signed means they're on the hook for the money, and it ends up in court. Of course, I exaggerate, and the real problems would probably be far more subtle, but is there anything in your charter to prevent even this ludicrous example? Wnt (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is needed in some way, the second point is one of the reasons that WMSE has not joined the WCA. --Ainali (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it just financial commitments you are concerned about? Those should be fairly easy to sort out. Just require one month's notice of any required contribution and specify that any chapter leaving the WCA within that month doesn't have the pay. The WCA should keep some reserves, as any organisation should, so that it can deal with sudden loss of expected income. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a start. I can't tell you everything you should have. I should disclose that I'm not a member of a chapter, and I hadn't heard of the WCA before it was mentioned on Jimbo's page yesterday and I glanced over the documents you have here. But even if you want to add just this one thing, you'll need to remake your charter to accommodate the change. You might as well think it through carefully and come up with the best "Bill of Rights" you can. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not the only concerns the chapter have. My personal view is that the biggest one was clearly illustrated on the pre-meeting this Wednesday where almost 50 % of the chapters said that the most important task for the association would be to act as a united voice against the Foundation. I would rather see that we were working together towards our mission, by sharing knowledge between chapters and helping each other, but when people are talking about what the association should do it rarely comes out as their top priority. Ainali (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Charter currently includes some language that limits the ability of the council to unilaterally raise fees on anyone. Specifically, it says "to determine the level of dues from the member Chapters, according to each Chapter's financial status, so the level of dues should be affordable and reasonable to each Chapter", which, at least in my reading of that language, precludes your scenario, at least in theory. In practice, however, the trouble is that there's currently hardly any way to prevent a council from violating the charter (or, indeed, getting any binding interpretation of it). The original draft of the charter included a special body for such disputes (e.g. a dispute between the council and a chapter) but it was removed in Berlin because many felt it was unnecessary. sebmol ^? 15:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right - that's what I was picturing being argued in a court - but it's far too vague. "Affordable" literally means it's something you can pay, not that it is a minor expense. And "reasonable" might mean that you can give a reason behind it... but does it have to be a good one? Reasonable to who? Wnt (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Language

" It could even do this to all chapters and ruin the WCA."

I think the word "ruin" is inappropriate. "Disband" seems more proper. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the intention of this section at all. Why is it necessary to create this picture of opposition when you are talking about the membership in the WCA? --Alice Wiegand (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This picture should not be created, indeed. But in the discussions of the CMs someone (I believe Michal) expressed his concerns about the fact that the WMF decides what is a chapter and what not. This was already discussed in Berlin in the AffCom meetings. I wanted here to stress out that there is no reason to worry. - What would be a better wording? Ziko (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest this is cut back. A discussion of what a chapter is, including the role of the WMF in recognizing a chapter, would be better dealt with at Chapters and Local chapter FAQ. If those pages are not enough, they should be made better, rather than repeat information or stray into speculation. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WMF Board letter regarding the Chapters Association

At our February 2 Board meeting, we spent several hours discussing the proposed Chapters Association and its potential role in the Wikimedia movement.

Despite our initial optimism, we have now reluctantly concluded that the proposed Chapters Association is unlikely to advance the Wikimedia mission significantly. We encouraged the concept in its early stages, but in light of the implementation to date, we regretfully have come to believe it will not be successful.

In our opinion, the Chapters Association hasn’t made a persuasive case that it will be effective. We believe that during its development thus far, it has not consulted sufficiently with movement stakeholders. We are concerned that it will not be equipped to offer oversight, which would be essential for an entity expected to provide governance support and oversight for the chapters. Considering its proposed role in the movement as well as the demand it would place on movement resources, we believe these factors are decisive.

Our reservations about the Chapters Association are serious, and we have difficulty envisioning circumstances in which the Wikimedia Foundation would be able to recognize it. That said, we believe in individuals and movement entities organising themselves to support each other, and that successful models for this exist.

We are acting now because of the recent call for hiring of the Secretary General by the Chapters Association and its apparent plans to incorporate soon.

We acknowledge that significant time and effort have been put into this initiative, and understand that some people will be disappointed by this conclusion. We welcome your comments.

For the Wikimedia board, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)