Question: should we recommend establishment of a Chapters Network

I would like to now propose that we include language for a Proposal:International Wikimedia Chapters Network.

Obviously the real decision on this issue lays in the hands of the various chapters, but I feel that a small boost from this task force could help move this process along.

So, I think we might say:

The Wikimedia movement should establish an International Wikimedia Chapters Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, both among the chapters and between the chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Pharos,

This is an idea that really resonates with the research and interviews that I have been doing about other global NGOs and networks and what lessons the Wikimedia movement can potentially learn from their experiences. Every organization I have talked to so far (Habitat, Save the Children, Greenpeace, Medecins Sans Frontieres) has moved in the past 10 years or so to create a central representative entity with many of the roles and responsibilities that you describe here and in the proposal (communication, collaboration, making decisions that impact all chapter, etc). And in many cases (e.g. Habitat), the need for this central entity arose from a situation that seems similar to Wikimedia in many ways: Chapters popped up organically around the world, and the movement became big enough where they realized that they could do more if they worked together.

The accountability questions that you raise are really interesting. It seems like the force of the network's resolutions would be directly related to what it could offer the chapters in return for complying. And maybe there would also need to be some sort of contract or agreement that chapters signed when they joined?

Great to hear that this is something that resonates with the experiences of other movements, and that we're not alone in the task of trying to bring together a movement that has grown in diverse places very organically.

I think it would be a good step for chapters to sign agreements to invest themselves into what would probably be a pretty lightweight Chapters Network at first, but something that could grow over time in its definition and responsibilities.

I'll add my comment here, as opposed to the redlinked talk page that nobody might read ;)

The Wikimedia movement should establish an International Wikimedia Chapters Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, both among the chapters and between the chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation.

I am not sure I understand this proposal. Or rather, the way I understand it, I am rather worried at the results it can yield in the longer run. Reading the (short) discussion, I understand that the proposal aims at looking at organizing the chapters around a "central" kind of piece, which would take care of ensuring communication, collaboration, making decisions etc. However, the way the recommandation is phrased, it seems to me that the task force proposes that the network of chapters be a separate entity from the Foundation. ie. we'd have the chapters on one side (organized, say, à la Greenpeace), and the Foundation on the other. I have studied a bit the governance and structural models of international organisations, and there are none where I have seen two "central pieces" or "international pieces" (formal or informal) or whatever you want to call them.

As such, I am interested to understand better where the Foundation stands were there to be a "network of chapters" as per your proposal. Am I reading this wrong, or is the "network of chapters" meant to develop among chapters and chapters only? I can imagine a "Wikimedia network" developping and increasing communication, cooperation and representation, not a "chapters network" that seems not to fully integrate the Foundation, but rather develop as a counterpart to it. Thanks for your clarifications.

That was actually me Delphine (notafish) 22:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the WMF and the chapters should be integrated much more fully than they are now. And I don't mean for the described arrangement to imply any sort of forking of paths; I would rather actually see this "network" as a pragmatic first step along the road to organizing some more permanent and integrated institutional arrangement.

Cool. If that's your intent, then what do you think about rephrasing the recommendation along those lines:

The Wikimedia movement should establish an International Wikimedia Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, among all Wikimedia organisations, including chapters and Foundation.

We might need to center it more on the part the Wikimedia Foundation would play (something like: "The Wikimedia Foundation should foster, along with chapters, the establishment of an International Wikimedia Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, among all Wikimedia organisations."

Have you looked at the details at Proposal:International Wikimedia Chapters Network?

There we have it structured with each chapter designating a single representative for the network; I kind of see this as a pragmatic step to get a body actually operational with the various chapter representatives in the short term, and then in the longer term working toward directly integrating the role of the WMF into these processes.

That said, I would have no problem at all with calling this structure the "International Wikimedia Network" and making other suggested wording changes, in recognition of our goals where we want to be taking this in the future.

As a matter of fact, I have. The points raised in that proposal are important (especially the "delegation" part, which allows for timely decisions), but the issue remains the same. If it's only chapters, we're de facto reinforcing the idea that chapters need to get organized in order to talk to the Foundation. My view is chapters and Foundation need to get organized together, in order to talk to one another (and this means organisation to organisation). It could be called the "International Wikimedia Council", or something like that, it's not so important. What's important, I find, is not to restrict it to one kind of organisation.

This makes total sense to me.

Sorry, I think I misunderstand your comment, Delphine. As long as you're OK with keeping the "delegation" part (which I also think is the most important element), I'd be very happy to have some expansions of this organizational idea.

To me, the important part is delegation as in Each chapter will designate a single person (either the chapter's lead officer or another person so designated by the chapter), who will represent the chapter in issues that come before the body.. But it would be even better if that said: Each Wikimedia organisation will designate a single person (either the organisation's lead officer or another person so designated by the organisation), who will represent the organisation in issues that come before the body..

In short, the idea of a "Council/Network/Thing (as De Gaulle put it ;)) is something I totally agree with, just it should be very clear that this "Council" involves all Wikimedia organisations, not just chapters. The phrasing "organisations" is maybe a bit lame, since well, there's only chapters and foundation at this stage, but it has the merit of making clear that we're not having the chapters on one side, the foundation on the other. Mind you, I'm pretty sure we agree on the bottom line and we're just stumbling on words and their interpretation :)

I guess different situations will call for different sets of organizations needing to be represented. Some situations will call for chapters only, some will call for chapters in combination with WMF, some will call for only a subset of chapters, etc.

My original suggestion was meant to take care of the simplest case; the set of chapter organizations deciding "chapter issues", because it should be relatively easy in this situation to agree that each chapter has one vote, and that each chapter will be counted equally. So, I hope that for issues of this sort, we can have some kind of de facto chapters network working.

I suppose that for issues that call for a combination of the chapters and the WMF, some more complicated form of organization will be needed, because we presumably wouldn't treat the WMF as simply equivalent to one of the chapters. I'm unsure how that situation should be balanced exactly, but I do think it will require some additional complexity that wouldn't be necessary when dealing with pure "chapters issues".

I just want to make sure that we are able to deal with the simple case first, ie "chapters issues", while also leaving room for finding a balance with WMF+chapters and other combinations.

The question here would be, what are "chapters issues"? To me, there are only "chapters issues" because we keep on thinking chapters vs foundation (or chapters // (parallel) foundation if you want to be less "confrontational"). My take is to say, there are only "organisational issues" and those should be tackled with all Wikimedia Organisations, not by the chapters in their own little corner, nor by the foundation on its own. As for the question of "one chapter one vote", it is probably a whole strategic process into itself ;). You're thinking representation. If there is representation, then this "representative" body must have some kind of final usage/power/strength, whatever you want to call it. A chapters network to makde decision that noone is going to apply is probably useless. Hence the call for making sure that all parties with a stake in those decisions be represented and that decisions made in turn apply to all organisations represented.