Rights which apply to only one group should be called out and defined; for regular review.
Rights for all
The right to be informed about overlapping work other groups are doing
Obligations for all
To have direct connection between their work and the projects
Trademark rights
Can we modify default trademark agreements with Chapters so that they can directly recognize user groups, with their basic default rights? If not, they should handle the secretarial review and assessment, and get routine approval of their recs.
Partnerships and groups can be flexible
We might consider multi-layered ways to recognize partners, groups supporting the movement at different levels of detail or global scope.
There could be an open recognition system (each chapter could recognzie user groups and partners) but a centralized reporting space (so all are visible in a single place)
What happens if orgs come into conflict during the recognition process?
This should be reviewed by AffCom before [recognizing] recognition
What if orgs come into conflict over a specific project, after recognition?
See Arbitration.
Arbitration
We should talk about interaction b/t different entities. [nb: arbitration isn't defined anywhere ni the movement yet, even b/t wmf and chapters or among chapters. The chapters council may do this for the first time.]
Does creating a user group mean not working with an existing chapter/organization?
Not necessarily. (Galio feels that it may; Sj feels it does not)
How should existing groups be consulted when new groups are being recognized?
If there is obvious overlap, they should be
How many groups of each kind will be recognized?
expect a few at most in the first year. Will revisit next year.
thematic orgs, like chapters, should be encouraged to be large. with relatively broadly-defined themes
non-national regional chapters should be open to combination within a national framework
Neutrality - to what extent is this a requirement?
Bias and political split: to what degree is it necessary for groups to be inclusive? - perhaps better to merge multiple prespectives into one content-focused group
Mission support vs. collaborating well with everyone
Groups that don't get along with one another can still each productively contribute to the movement.
Don't think of people as 'taking advantage' of rights
Think of them as giving us their time and resources, and empowering them to do that. Everyone who gets involved and asks for such rights are trying to help what we do; don't frame things in the language of conflict and misuse.
Give Chapters and Thematic Organizations a voice in the development of our identity.
Allow for input from these groups when preparing to accept new groups.
