View source for Agenda talk:2013-11/Frequently asked questions

== User groups: 'why now' ==
The consultation process could be made clearer.   The last paragraph could be rewritten: 
: "''We consulted with AffCom and the WMF Executive Director in making this decision.   The ED endorsed it, AffCom did not, but we took the committee's concerns into account.''"
<span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>&nbsp;[[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]]&nbsp;</small></span> 09:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

:: SJ, with all respect, your proposed text would be a slight departure from the truth and would feel disrespectful to me (and perhaps to other members of AffCom). --[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 13:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

::: Thank you, Bence.  I also received a clarifying email about this today.  This subthread was useful for me, since my understanding of the discussions leading up to the decision had been different.  In that case, this paragraph could be removed; the end of the FAQ covers the discussion after the decision was made, and there is no need to repeat it.  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>&nbsp;[[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]]&nbsp;</small></span> 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I am fine with removing that sentence. --[[User:Bdamokos|Bence]] ([[User talk:Bdamokos|talk]]) 18:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)  

Removed: "We also received a recommendation from the WMF Executive Director to make this decision, and before publishing the decision we consulted with AffCom. AffCom did not endorse this change, but we took the committee's concerns into account."   <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>&nbsp;[[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]]&nbsp;</small></span> 19:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks! -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 00:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

== Trust in the existing entity model ==
One of the original questions was "Has the WMF lost trust in chapters and thematic organizations? Does the WMF think chapters are a bad idea?"
I switched this to the positive version of those questions.   If this missed an aspect of the original, feel free to add Qs or ask for further clarity.  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>&nbsp;[[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]]&nbsp;</small></span> 18:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

== Concept of user group (not related to being legally incorporated) ==

Although I do agree that focusing on programmatic activities is more important than focusing on bylaws and necessarily requiring legal incorporation, I`m afraid there is a conceptual confusion on the statement made on that point. I would like to ask for clarification on the understanding of the user groups. I've pointed out a couple of times in Brazil that creating a user group does not necessarily mean not incorporating. As the user group page states, [[Wikimedia_user_groups|"User groups may or may not be legally incorporated entities"]]. Therefore, the difference between a user group and a chapter may be only in the relation with WMF and not on how they are formed on the ground. A user group might well be incorporated if it feels right for the group. Only WMF would not endorse this group as much as it would endorse a chapter through financial support and trademark pre-authorized use. Is that correct?--[[User:Oona|Oona]] ([[User talk:Oona|talk]]) 19:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
: I second this question. I know some WMF board members have negative opinions about formal entities, but most volunteer work in the world is organised through associations and other formal entities, because shared rules help democracy and efficiency. In many countries, setting up an association is is a very easy and logical step, while "groups" and other abstract ideas in the air are huge bureaucratical complications.
: The whole decision is all focused on money: the duty to spend money and conduct "programs"; the possibility to ask money to the WMF. What if some wikimedians just want to get together in an association? What if they don't want your dirty damned money?
: Will they be allowed to set up an association with a meaningful name ("incorporated" association for some meaning of the word, depending on the country) or will you prevent them from doing so? Can they make an association and ask recognition as "user group", so they'd be called "Association wiki friends of the ice ''acting'' as [approved] Wikisource Tasmania user group" in the first two years and then "Wikisource Tasmania association" two years later after approval? Or will they need to have two separate things, the actual association and the ghost "user group" because WMF is in love with this organisational structure, possibly being forced to re-incorporate again after two years? And what sense does all this make? --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 20:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
:: I third this question. I don’t see why user groups must be ''unincorporated'' for becoming later a chapter – I quite aggree with the background decision for programmatic activity, although I find two years is a bit long by comparison with our historical time scale, and although this can also be viewed as another obstacle to creating chapters.
:: For what I know in France, setting up an incorporated association is very easy and is quite an absolute condition for handling money on behalf of the group and hence doing some activities of a certain size; it is legally possible to "create" unincorporated associations but this is not widely recognised and it cannot really handle money. So in France an unincorporated user group could not healthily grow [alone] (this is a theoretical situation since in France, local user groups are financially supported by WMFR).
::~ [[User:Seb35|Seb35]] [[User talk:Seb35|<small>[^_^]</small>]] 21:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

: @Oona: That is correct.   The point is, you don't have to incorporate if you don't want to.  Before we had a Brazilian group that was determined not to incorporate, and we pressured them to do so.  Now we want to be extra clear that this is not necessary.
: @Seb35: user groups can be incorporated if they so choose.  However there are other options -- including having an umbrella organization that handles bank accounts for you, such as the example you give in France. 
: @Nemo: There's nothing wrong with formal entities.  They're simply not mandatory for productivity.  
: A few years ago, the WMF required being a formal entity even where not needed or helpful, and did not grant (TM) rights or financial grants to individuals and ad-hoc groups; now that has changed. This is why funding and TM are mentioned here: they are part of the WMF's responsibility, and are now available to user groups as well.  
: There is no 'duty to spend money': to the contrary, much of the best work in our movement, both organized and unorganized, is done without it.  
: User groups can have meaningful names.  Often the founding name is something longer and descriptive ("''Association of Tasmanian Wikisorcerors''"), but in most jurisdictions it can add other names later without reincorporating.  <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small>&nbsp;[[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]]&nbsp;</small></span> 09:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

* Hey folks, just wanted to let you know that we are discussing this question (around incorporation) within the board as well and will try to post a longer answer soon :) -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 19:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
::Hi all, here's an answer from the board, with some input from our legal team. 
::Thanks for seeking this clarification, which is completely reasonable given some of the language used.  What we meant to convey by the phrase “unincorporated user group” was our intent to encourage less legalistic structures around movement organizations. That said, user groups may pursue local requirements for volunteer clubs or associations in a particular country, including incorporation when necessary for that type of club or association.

::Sorry about the confusion, and I hope this helps. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | <small>[[user_talk:phoebe|talk]]</small> 07:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)