In the UK there is a concept of an unincorporated association where the association (which can have full charitable status) isn't a legal entity in its own right and any agreements it makes are actually made with the Board of Trustees as a group of individuals but there is some kind of legislation that ensures continuity - when the membership of the board changes, the parties to the agreements somehow change (I didn't investigate this in much detail because Wikimedia UK decided to go down the incorporated route). That kind of association would work absolutely fine as a chapter (the main disadvantage is that the board are personally liable for the chapter's debts, including court ordered fines and damages)

On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 21:54 -0700, Michael Snow wrote:

Actually, that sounds like a good idea. I wonder if there's interest among people involved with accessibility (whether blind or not - for example I'd potentially be interested in helping). More concretely, there has been (for a while) talk of a Wikibooks "chapter"... it obviously wouldn't be based on geography, but could promote Wikibooks and Wikibooks-related issues, and develop programs and software for that project. Many of the sister projects may feel a similar need - other than Commons, I don't know of any major projects to promote growth or reach for the non-Wikipedia projects. Disappointingly, the usability initiative is explicitly about improving usability on Wikipedia, and not other projects. While there may be concomittant improvements, there's nothing specific for us, while everything is specific for Wikipedia. Luckily that will be addressed for Commons with this latest grant. However, beyond technical issues, there is a lot the Wikibooks community could do in terms of promotion and outreach that isn't being done by the community or the Foundation currently. There's only so much volunteers can do from the bottom up without some organization and support, and the Foundation can only do so much from the top down. An organized chapter-like body would fill a gap between the two that could potentially have an enormous impact on the project since it smaller. Thanks, -Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

*We are **a movement of autonomous volunteers: *   - *Instead of a legal entity, an open movement*   - *Instead of bylaws, a statement of principles*   - *Instead of legal representatives, task assigned peers*   - *Instead of internal finances, grants can go through partners* *Actions come first to material resources!*

Ilario, you said: I understand your concern, but in reality, there are many ways to determine a point of contact "without an organization". For instance, "instead of legal representatives, (in Brazil we'd have) task assigned peers". They could be the point of contact too.

I agree with you. In Brazil we have the same mission as any other chapter. Maybe it's a "first step" to become a chapter, but maybe it's a format for the long-term to do the same as the any other chapters (promote Wikimedia projects in a certain region). Shouldn't all types of chapters collaborate?

I have researched a bit, while looking at the "catalan case" and my conclusion is that such interest groups might be able to fundraise where national chapters and the Foundation can't. It is impossible (and in any case not desirable) for Wikimedia France or Wikimedia Italia (and one day Wikimedia Spain) to change their bylaws to focus on "catalan" in order to attract some grants that would be only be given to such interest groups or to fundraise in the interested part of the population.

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Thomas Dalton&lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: As far as I know, you're right -- they are very different. :-)  My understanding of the "catalan case" is that a group of people want to make a Catalan-language-type chapter, where it is registered in one country but can carry out activities in other areas where the Catalan language is widely used.  (They run into a small problem when these areas are located in countries that already have chapters (fr/it) and ones that might have them in the future (es).) The Meta page will probably give a better explanation for those interested: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_in_Catalan>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 06:54, Michael Snow&lt;wikipedia(a)verizon.net&gt; wrote: As an answer to this question, I would say yes. My nuances come later. I think it's important to keep in mind the implications of supporting Wikimedia. These implications fall, in my opinion, in two categories: - Use of the trademark - Financial flow (access to specific grants, fundraising) I see three scenarii: 1) informal national chapters or "chapters to be": There are countries in the world where starting a chapter in the way it is defined today is an endeavour that makes little sense, for political, cultural, philosophical, financial or administrative reasons. Here I'll make a difference between  informal local/national groups (will never be a chapter) and chapters to be (aims at becoming a chapter). For informal national groups, it is important that the Wikimedia Foundation supports grassroot initiatives that aim at supporting the Wikimedia projects. If the work stays informal, and there is no need for any kind of formality (plan wikimeets, intervene in conferences, that kind of grassroot public outreach), then the support from the Foundation could be minimal, such as maybe a letter of introduction for someone wanting to participate in a conference in a specific country. If, on the other hand, the need shows up for a formal kind of "representation", there are probably many ways to explore on how a group of Wikimedians could integrate an existing structure (some other NGO with similar goals) in order to enter a formal agreement with the WMF re: trademarks and/or fundraising. I believe we could develop some kind of "partnership agreeement with third party non-profits" which would allow active Wikimedians who are not able or willing to form a chapter to intensify outreach in some kind of structured way, under a "Wikimedia banner". For "chapters to be", I think the same could happen, with the idea that the grassroot initiative wants to take some time to develop into a working national chapter. Growing initiatives with the help of an existing structure could be a good first step towards "chapteriality", and it is important that the WMF follow those initiatives and help the members who wish to develop the best way of founding a chapter by developing ideas in another context. What I don't see, in either of these cases, is an "informal group" with the same objectives of fundraising and potentially trademark usage that stays completely informal. Of course, national legislations may vary, but in the end, in order to protect the trademark and reputation of Wikimedia, it seems to be very hard to have constantly renewed individuals being the "Wikimedia flagship" in one country or the other. 2) Specific events/projects I don't know about the Gdansk team and whether they have indeed decided to set up an ephemeral organisation, but I suppose it would make sense, in the case of a defined event, or project, to do something of the kind. Again, I suppose legal jurisdictions have different ways of going about this. This said, for such cases, the WMF could also enter some kind of clear agreement which allows the ephemeral group to use the trademarks and fundraise (or find sponsors as for Wikimania) for a specific project. 3) Trans-national interest groups. I remember us discussing wildly the "Association of blind Wikipedians" ;-). It's a good example, as is a potential "Wikimedia Catalunya" and this kind of transnational grassroot initiative is probably the hardest case. Of course, as Thomas Dalton said later in this thread, we can't really (and shouldn't have to) prevent a "Wiki for the blind" organisation to see the light of day. The question comes when this organisation starts to fundraise using the fact that they're going to help the Wikimedia projects and thus comes, to some extent, in competition with existing organisations (chapters and the Foundation). The question is really, at which point is there "actual competition"? I have researched a bit, while looking at the "catalan case" and my conclusion is that such interest groups might be able to fundraise where national chapters and the Foundation can't. It is impossible (and in any case not desirable) for Wikimedia France or Wikimedia Italia (and one day Wikimedia Spain) to change their bylaws to focus on "catalan" in order to attract some grants that would be only be given to such interest groups or to fundraise in the interested part of the population. It is, however, easy and desirable that chapters and Foundation support those groups as much as they can, whether by lending them moral and even logistical support or by becoming full partners in their endeavours. This could be done on a case by case basis (The Association of Blind Wikipedians decides to fundraise to make Mediawiki fully usable and that initiative is launched with the partnership of the WMFoundation) or on the longer term (The Association of Catalan Wiki Users is recognized by WM France, WM Italia and WM España as a long-term partner). We could for this take as an example the UNESCO partnership/recognition scheme. [1] The important thing here being that the more "antennas" we have out there which can attract funds otherwise not available to existing Wikimedia organisations is a Good Thing (tm). As long as these funds are used to promote our mission and goals and support our projects, it does not matter "who" gets them. So to summarize my ideas: - Case by case recognition of grassroot groups for informal outreach (letters of recommandation if needed) - Partnership agreeement with third party non-profits for local/national groups which integrate existing structures and perform outreach for Wikimedia within those structures. - Joint formal support from existing chapters/the Foundation for transnational initiatives, partnership conventions on a case by case basis and maybe even a partnership scheme such as that of the UNESCO. Cheers, Delphine [1] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=32914&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL… shorturl: http://bit.ly/e59gK -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 04:11, Pharos&lt;pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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". 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

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".

Yes, keeping in mind that the most important thing here is, in my opinion, close collaboration with the chapters that are "touched" by this organisation. In cases like this, I am not sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is the best partner. In any case, the WMFoundation definitely should not be the "only" partner and recognition should also come from the chapters potentially involved.

It could be assimilated to the way organisations partner up to answer EU grants for example. Each keeps their autonomy, but they all work together towards a common goal. Call it "support" or "partnership", not "recognition", that probably makes more sense.