- "open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpos (...) We recommend that creation of an association be a simple two step process: listing ones group, purpose and practices in a central place, and confirming the contact information of its liaison. (...) Associations could also choose to set up a bank account to allow them to apply as a group for project grants, in which case they would need to name a treasurer."
Ok, so if the contact person is the treasurer, that association will have money and the power to use the trademarks in the hands of only single person (or two - which is a bit less scary than before). I agree we should have "no-formal" organizations groups, but that is take it a bit too far for me. Would not be better if they have some kind of "board" or anything responsible for trademarks and money issues? Béria Lima msg 12:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
What about recommendations to all global (cross-project, or WMF-chapter-community) committees? EG chapcom, langcom, research, Wikimania jury, etc. Possible standards could include reporting standards, clear scope of decision making, membership (procedures for regularly recruiting new members and membership turnover, such as term limits); and so on. The goal would be to increase responsiveness, decision-making ability, productivity and openness of all Wikimedia committees. -- phoebe | talk 12:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This looks pretty good; have the rec's been sent to the Board or to other recipients already? What happens next? Thanks, --Eloquence 01:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do we need a Central planEdit
The wikis have grown without having any central plan. Why do we need a central plan that everyone has to sign up to? I prefer lots of different plans, lots of people trying different things. This may be less efficient but it is more likely we will stumble upon the next big thing.--Filceolaire 17:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I too am weary of the tendency towards centralization, hierarchy, and further bureaucracy. There are some proposals here which are clearly designed to solve existing, concrete problems, but there are some which look very much like solutions in need of a problem. The recommendations to the editor community are particularly troubling. What problems are being addressed there? What examples of "inter-project disagreements" have there been that a pan-project dispute resolution body could address? What would the proposed community council actually do? James Salsman 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)