What do we agree on: Advocacy TF recommendations

well, a lot of social science and political science research results - at least since gamsons:"the strategy of social protest" - show us that heterogeneous movements like wikimedia (btw: highly simplified model) are depending on programmatic blur.

in other words: if you describe this core of advocacy as: (mammal; big ears; herbivore; social animal) all stakeholder prefering: (mammal; big ears; carnivore; lone wolf) were puzzled and we are - maybe - risking disintegration. on the other side: if you say (mammal; big ears) other stakeholder will complain that`s a vague and useless advocacy.

it seems more practicable to create partial tasks of advocacy for concrete units like the foundation and WMF staff, chapter, committees and so on without writing a strong statement for the big question. but the partial solution depends on a nonexistent consensus of movement tasks for all regular manageable stakeholders

Yes, Jan eissfeldt, I hear you and I totally agree. Having said that, at this point in the development of the movement, I think I would settle for (mammal; big ears) :-)

the next (theoretical) opportunity to make a substantial step forward for a partial solution is the meeting in berlin next month. maybe it would help to discuss and clarify the foundation-chapter-committee relations - related to the strategy process - there. which upcomming tasks are new for chapters and committees, which benchmarks are important in the different perspectives, who should host the - up-bottom or bottom-up - review process of ideas from the community, sharing responsibility or exclusive areas for specific core themes (beside trademarks, etc.), who and how to deal with non-offical forms of organization and so on.

de facto it`s the metalevel of Arnes proposal, differentiated and oriented on the - mid april available - strategy process results of advocacy tasks and how to achieve them.

that`s maybe a way to create a concret advocacy labor-agenda for regular controllable units without a damaged mirror of unbound stakeholder expectations and projections.

--Jan eissfeldt 13:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)