Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[James Heilman]

From the perspective of Wiki Project Med Foundation, I am happy to see
criteria for thorg / chapter status. It makes a previously somewhat unclear
application process more concrete.

James

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Christophe Henner 
wrote:

> Hi Brill,
>
> Everything is a discussion. There has been interesting points and
> discussions for many mails, and we would like that to continue. Because all
> of those opinions are interesting in setting the movement strategy.
>
> Howevere the *temporary* criteria are to be used by AffCom now. So that
> AffCom can actually continue its work, and resume approving new chapters
> (which was on hold for month) without postponing it.
>
> As we said on other emails few weeks, we want to use the coming year to
> form a movement strategy. A strategy that is comprehensive of who we are, a
> global movement. So it would be, I believe, a waste of time to work /
> discuss over criterieas that will have to be adapted in a few month.
>
> The AffCom came up with, what I think, and from the previous emails, is
> good criterias. They might need some interpretation, and I'm sure the
> AffCom will not apply them bluntly.  And again they are a temporary
> framework.
>
> So again, not shutting down the discussion, discussion is more than welcome
> and needed. But the discussion will impact the long term criterias and
> AffCom role and responsabilities. which, I believe, is a much more
> important discussions. And the different opinions voiced in reaction to
> those criterias are really interesting.
>
> Have a nice day :)
>
> Christophe
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Brill Lyle 
> wrote:
>
> > I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a
> > discussion. I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT
> > fostering community.
> >
> > To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to
> > take the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal approach to
> > engagement on any level.
> >
> > I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the
> > dismissive responses by those who seem to be on the committee.
> >
> > If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more
> > understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach
> seems
> > a real misstep.
> >
> > - Erika
> >
> > > On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you
> > could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use)
> > or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are
> > isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America
> to
> > be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen
> > we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
> > >
> > > What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the
> > affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in
> exactly
> > the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012
> > with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern
> > Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought
> they
> > had with affcom.
> > >
> > > All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption
> > of good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we
> > make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a
> > level of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to
> trust
> > and assuming good faith.
> > >
> > > Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> > criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> > to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make
> that
> > choice
> > >
> > >> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner 
> > wrote:
> > >> Hi Gnangarra,
> > >>
> > >> This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
> > >>
> > >> As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement
> can
> > >> keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
> > only
> > >> about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
> > interesting
> > >> and important, topic.
> > >>
> > >> As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more
> to
> > >> come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and
> summer),
> > it
> > >> is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do
> we
> > >> make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia
> > organizations
> > >> to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion
> > will
> > >> come.
> > >>
> > >> But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> > consultation
> > >> about those provisional criterias and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Christophe Henner]

Hi Brill,

Everything is a discussion. There has been interesting points and
discussions for many mails, and we would like that to continue. Because all
of those opinions are interesting in setting the movement strategy.

Howevere the *temporary* criteria are to be used by AffCom now. So that
AffCom can actually continue its work, and resume approving new chapters
(which was on hold for month) without postponing it.

As we said on other emails few weeks, we want to use the coming year to
form a movement strategy. A strategy that is comprehensive of who we are, a
global movement. So it would be, I believe, a waste of time to work /
discuss over criterieas that will have to be adapted in a few month.

The AffCom came up with, what I think, and from the previous emails, is
good criterias. They might need some interpretation, and I'm sure the
AffCom will not apply them bluntly.  And again they are a temporary
framework.

So again, not shutting down the discussion, discussion is more than welcome
and needed. But the discussion will impact the long term criterias and
AffCom role and responsabilities. which, I believe, is a much more
important discussions. And the different opinions voiced in reaction to
those criterias are really interesting.

Have a nice day :)

Christophe




On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Brill Lyle  wrote:

> I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a
> discussion. I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT
> fostering community.
>
> To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to
> take the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal approach to
> engagement on any level.
>
> I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the
> dismissive responses by those who seem to be on the committee.
>
> If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more
> understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach seems
> a real misstep.
>
> - Erika
>
> > On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you
> could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use)
> or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are
> isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to
> be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen
> we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
> >
> > What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the
> affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly
> the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012
> with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern
> Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they
> had with affcom.
> >
> > All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption
> of good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we
> make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a
> level of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust
> and assuming good faith.
> >
> > Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
> choice
> >
> >> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
> >> Hi Gnangarra,
> >>
> >> This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
> >>
> >> As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can
> >> keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
> only
> >> about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
> interesting
> >> and important, topic.
> >>
> >> As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> >> come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
> it
> >> is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> >> make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia
> organizations
> >> to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion
> will
> >> come.
> >>
> >> But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> consultation
> >> about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> >> strategy.
> >>
> >> That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I
> thought
> >> was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom
> support
> >> affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates
> live by
> >> their engagements.
> >>
> >> One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
> >>
> >> As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> >> white.
> >>
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Brill Lyle]

I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a discussion. 
I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT fostering community. 

To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to take 
the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal approach to engagement on 
any level. 

I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the dismissive 
responses by those who seem to be on the committee. 

If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more 
understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach seems a 
real misstep. 

- Erika

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could be 
> surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my 
> expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont 
> get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of the 
> discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally 
> hear about them but are expected to follow them.
> 
> What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates to 
> being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same 
> response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the 
> loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups 
> being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had with 
> affcom.  
> 
> All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of 
> good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make 
> rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of 
> distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and 
> assuming good faith.
> 
> Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create 
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to 
> make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that choice
> 
>> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner  wrote:
>> Hi Gnangarra,
>> 
>> This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
>> 
>> As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can
>> keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be only
>> about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more interesting
>> and important, topic.
>> 
>> As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
>> come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it
>> is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
>> make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
>> to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
>> come.
>> 
>> But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation
>> about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
>> strategy.
>> 
>> That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
>> was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
>> affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by
>> their engagements.
>> 
>> One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
>> 
>> As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
>> white.
>> 
>> Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen
>> on a much larger topic that includes them.
>> AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
>> duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
>> recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and
>> sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
>> 
>> Happy to further that discussion,
>> 
>> Have a all great day
>> 
>> Christophe
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>> 
>> > So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just
>> > like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
>> >
>> > sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after all
>> > of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was
>> > heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
>> > Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
>> >
>> > On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A  wrote:
>> >
>> > > I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to
>> > > quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some
>> > > consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be
>> > > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
>> > >
>> > > Romaine said that it's desirable to have 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Asaf Bartov]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> > Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do
> > not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
> for
> > that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to
> > meeting standards or losing their status.
> >
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
> 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
>
> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>
> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
> towards.
>

As of this year, a process does exist, and is reflected here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

(perhaps a link to this should be added to the AffCom nav-box.)

This process is being followed, right now, to review the status of inactive
and non-compliant chapters, at long last.

   A.

-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Chris Keating]

>
> To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to
> bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and
> promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide
> x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to
> assist user groups to expand...
>

Well, yes - and (at least so far as I can tell from my point of view) there
is a huge shortage of support for user groups and smaller chapters.

However, there are some chapters that genuinely don't exist any more and
there is not much point having organisations that have effectively shut up
shop listed as Wikimedia chapters.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Pierre-Selim]

Seriously, it's just board and affcom doing their job ...

And oh surprise, they did not involved the whole communities on temporary
criteria ...
I just want to thanks them for not wasting my time.

I'd rather be involve in the strategy!

2016-08-23 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :

> I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could
> be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at
> my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we
> dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of
> the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont
> normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
>
> What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates
> to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same
> response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the
> loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe
> groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had
> with affcom.
>
> All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of
> good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make
> rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level
> of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and
> assuming good faith.
>
> Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
> choice
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
> >
> > As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can
> > keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
> only
> > about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
> interesting
> > and important, topic.
> >
> > As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> > come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
> it
> > is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> > make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
> > to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
> > come.
> >
> > But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> consultation
> > about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> > strategy.
> >
> > That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
> > was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
> > affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live
> by
> > their engagements.
> >
> > One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
> >
> > As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> > white.
> >
> > Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
> happen
> > on a much larger topic that includes them.
> > AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
> > duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
> > recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties
> and
> > sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
> >
> > Happy to further that discussion,
> >
> > Have a all great day
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just
> > > like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
> > >
> > > sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after
> > all
> > > of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was
> > > heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
> > > Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish
> them
> > >
> > > On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to
> > > > quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to
> > some
> > > > consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to
> be
> > > > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
> > > >
> > > > Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized
> affiliates
> > to
> > > > meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
> > > unfair
> > > > to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg
> and
> > > > Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
> > > among
> > > > those that already are recognized as such. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Christophe Henner]

Hi,

What surprized me is the bad faith you assumed regarding AffCom and BoT
when during the past weeks I believe we've shown through actions, and not
talks, that we did listen to the feedback and acted on it. The discussion
on wikimedia-l have been really good to read for a few weeks and I would
love it to keep it that way. Disagreeing is a good thing, when it is done
in a manner that is actually open for a discussion. We will not always be
right, and having people disagreeing and explaining why we might be wrong
is the best way to make sure we make as little wrong decisions as possible.

And I totally agree we need to assume good faith and trust each other, that
is key in the coming strategy process.

And that's also why I'm surprized because setting up those temporaly
criterias is done so that for the next few month AffCom will be able to
work with affiliates to contribute to the strategy process.

Of course for native english speaking / larger chapters, it might not be a
bigh deal. But we also have dozens of smaller organizations that do not
dare be part of this discussion. We also need their opinions, their views,
to know about their needs and expectations. That is where AffCom will be
super useful for the movement.

Again, we have shared that publicly during Wikimania, and I am happy to do
that here to, but our rmain goal for this year is to make sure we finally
have a comprehensive movement strategy. That is where our focus is. So
temporary decisions, like this one, are made so that we focus discussing
about the thing that will shape the movement for years.

I am happy to discuss this here, all I ask is please to assume good faith
and read into the context I'm trying to provide you with.

Have a great day,

Christophe



On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could
> be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at
> my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we
> dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of
> the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont
> normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
>
> What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates
> to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same
> response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the
> loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe
> groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had
> with affcom.
>
> All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of
> good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make
> rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level
> of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and
> assuming good faith.
>
> Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
> choice
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
> >
> > As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can
> > keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
> only
> > about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
> interesting
> > and important, topic.
> >
> > As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> > come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
> it
> > is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> > make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
> > to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
> > come.
> >
> > But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> consultation
> > about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> > strategy.
> >
> > That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
> > was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
> > affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live
> by
> > their engagements.
> >
> > One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
> >
> > As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> > white.
> >
> > Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
> happen
> > on a much larger topic that includes them.
> > AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
> > duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
> > recognized, supporting them, helping them, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Gnangarra]

I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could
be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at
my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we
dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of
the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont
normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.

What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates
to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same
response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the
loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe
groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had
with affcom.

All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of
good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make
rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level
of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and
assuming good faith.

Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
choice

On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner  wrote:

> Hi Gnangarra,
>
> This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
>
> As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can
> keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be only
> about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more interesting
> and important, topic.
>
> As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it
> is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
> to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
> come.
>
> But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation
> about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> strategy.
>
> That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
> was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
> affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by
> their engagements.
>
> One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
>
> As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> white.
>
> Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen
> on a much larger topic that includes them.
> AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
> duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
> recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and
> sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
>
> Happy to further that discussion,
>
> Have a all great day
>
> Christophe
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just
> > like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
> >
> > sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after
> all
> > of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was
> > heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
> > Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
> >
> > On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A  wrote:
> >
> > > I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to
> > > quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to
> some
> > > consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be
> > > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
> > >
> > > Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates
> to
> > > meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
> > unfair
> > > to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
> > > Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
> > among
> > > those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg
> and
> > > Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep
> affiliate
> > > status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid
> > to
> > > get them dormant.
> > >
> > > This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF
> staff
> > > makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you
> eligible
> > > to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
> > > requirementes it will be reported to AffCom 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Christophe Henner]

Hi Gnangarra,

This is not a discussion, and this is by design.

As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can
keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be only
about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more interesting
and important, topic.

As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it
is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
come.

But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation
about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
strategy.

That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by
their engagements.

One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.

As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
white.

Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen
on a much larger topic that includes them.
AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and
sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.

Happy to further that discussion,

Have a all great day

Christophe


On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just
> like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
>
> sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after all
> of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was
> heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
> Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A  wrote:
>
> > I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to
> > quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some
> > consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be
> > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
> >
> > Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to
> > meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
> unfair
> > to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
> > Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
> among
> > those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and
> > Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate
> > status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid
> to
> > get them dormant.
> >
> > This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff
> > makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible
> > to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
> > requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case
> > if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
> >
> > ---
> > *Possible questions:*
> >
> > *Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my
> > recognition as chapter?*
> >
> > *A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the
> > situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
> >
> > *Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
> >
> > *A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom,
> WMF
> > or other affiliates help if is needed.
> >
> > *Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without
> > activity and nothing had happened so far.*
> >
> > *A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
> >
> > ---
> > If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm
> > sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
> >
> > Regards!
> >
> > 2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra :
> >
> > > Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you
> > > want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept
> > > that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you
> need
> > to
> > > assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we
> all
> > > face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
> > fair
> > >
> > > On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Gnangarra,
> > >>
> > >> I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things
> > >> differently may be in the discussion of how we 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Gnangarra]

So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just
like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...

sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after all
of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was
heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them

On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A  wrote:

> I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to
> quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some
> consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be
> clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
>
> Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to
> meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be unfair
> to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
> Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work among
> those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and
> Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate
> status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid to
> get them dormant.
>
> This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff
> makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible
> to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
> requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case
> if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
>
> ---
> *Possible questions:*
>
> *Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my
> recognition as chapter?*
>
> *A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the
> situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
>
> *Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
>
> *A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, WMF
> or other affiliates help if is needed.
>
> *Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without
> activity and nothing had happened so far.*
>
> *A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
>
> ---
> If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm
> sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
>
> Regards!
>
> 2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra :
>
> > Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you
> > want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept
> > that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you need
> to
> > assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we all
> > face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
> fair
> >
> > On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> Gnangarra,
> >>
> >> I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things
> >> differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision.
> >> Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but
> >> organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws,
> >> real
> >> people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress.
> >> We
> >> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
> >> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
> >> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
> >>
> >> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
> >> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
> >> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
> >>
> >> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I
> plan
> >> to return here in a week or two.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Affiliates mailing list
> > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Salvador Alcántar*
> *@salvador_alc*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>