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

[Nikola Kalchev]

First of all, thanks to the AffCom for defining the criteria. I am
positively surprised and impressed that they managed to do it since
Wikimania when I was told in a private chat that I could forget about
having my user group recognised as a chapter this year. Thank you all, who
made this possible in such a short time!

I've taken the pains of reading the whole discussion and it seems that
there are two main points of discussion:
- quantitative vs qualitative criteria and
- the possibility to transform chapters in user groups and disband user
groups.

I strongly oppose to only quantitative criteria. Some have to be in place
and I expect the AffCom to define meaningful quantitative criteria for the
recognition of user groups and chapters, but I expect that a group of
serious and experienced community members has the right to overwrite the
quantitative criteria if considered needed. This way the communities will
know what to aim at, but if the standard aims are not suitable for the
cultural and/or political context of the place where they act, exceptions
must be allowed.

Organisation should be transformable and the criteria should hold for
everyone. There already is a process of deciding who is allowed to send
representatives to the Wikimedia Conference and something similar should be
set up for the upgrading and downgrading of organisations.

This said, I would gladly see user groups and chapters getting as similar
rights and responsibilities as possible. I do not understand why a rather
inactive chapter can send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference,
have a vote for affiliate-elected WMF seats and be allowed to sign the
trademark agreement, while a very active user group can send 1 delegate,
cannot decide on the future of the WMF BoT and has to go through a tedious
process every time they wish to use the Wikimedia logo and name. This way
aspiring user groups are being deprived of possibilities to develop and by
doing that to enable the creation of more free content even faster. Imagine
a chapter with five active Wikimedians and a user group with ten. These
exist.

Best regards,
Nikola / User:Lord Bumbury
Wikimedians of Bulgaria User Group

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Hi,
> I appreciate the effort, it's interesting but there should more flexibility
> in my opinion.
>
> All is relative. Probably in Estonia, to do an outdoor activity, people
> must wait more time than buying a loaf of bread in Venezuela. Depending on
> the variable everyone has more difficulties than another, but it's
> different to divide the world into good and bad.
>
> Some criteria should be meet, I agree, but the flexibility and more a
> matrix of criteria makes sense.
>
> The biggest problem in a general concept of rules is to introduce global
> rules that can kill the diversity.
>
> They will help to have standardized and well defined entities and easy to
> monitor, but also similar and undifferentiated entities.
>
> To measure a maturity of a model the best would be to introduce a
> combination of variables and not only three. It would be good to have,
> let's say, three different parameters for each areas to have at least 9
> different standards as a combination.
>
> I think that a more flexible criteria can be a valid support.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Pine,
> >
> > El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
> >
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > In general, I like the new criteria.
> >
> > I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so
> that
> > there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
> > these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy
> about
> > the status of affiliates.
> >
> >
> > The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
> > context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
> > cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the
> situation
> > of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of
> > Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of
> > bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or
> > where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country
> > except for the capital.
> >
> > If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
> > story.
> >
> > --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Wikipedia: Ilario 
> Skype: valdelli
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Elections Committee

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I am also curious whether the committee members (and by extension the WMF
> staff and Board liaisons) have undertaken to not run in the next election.
> Given that the Committee is tasked with reviewing and potentially modifying
> the rules under which future elections will be held, such a public
> confirmation would prevent the perception of conflict of interest.
>
>
I can answer the one about myself: within the Board we have agreed that the
matters pertaining to community elections will be dealt with by Nataliia,
as I have not made a decision about not running yet.

I do hope, however,  that I will be able to cooperate with the Election
Committee on topics such as a more general restructuring of the Board.

best,

dj
___
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] New Elections Committee

[Risker]

Thank you to those of you who have volunteered in this role.  I have a lot
of faith in all of you to improve on the groundwork that was done in the
recent past, and am particularly glad that you should have sufficient time
to consider and test different voting systems - something that the last two
"temporary" election committees did not really have an opportunity to do.
I am certain you have all been reviewing the "post mortems" of the last few
elections to see what was considered in need of improvement.

It's been six weeks since the appointment of the committee, and I am
curious to know who has been selected as the chair, and whether or not the
committee has introduced any other members or selected any advisors.

I am also curious whether the committee members (and by extension the WMF
staff and Board liaisons) have undertaken to not run in the next election.
Given that the Committee is tasked with reviewing and potentially modifying
the rules under which future elections will be held, such a public
confirmation would prevent the perception of conflict of interest.

While I appreciate that many Wikimedians reduce their activity during the
July-August period (myself included, for family reasons this year), I'd
like to encourage the Election Committee to seriously consider starting an
examination of the voting system in the near future, including some public
discussions, and arrangements with the appropriate developers to write out
the programs and test voting systems that the committee considers to have
potential.  I think this is the task that will take the most time because
it will need to be incorporated into the workload of already-busy
staff/developers, and will also require discussion both with the broader
community and within the committee itself.

I wish you all the very best - you have an opportunity to have a
significant impact in the governance of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Risker/Anne

On 20 July 2016 at 21:00, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> Dear members of the Wikimedia community,
>
> As you know the board passed a resolution allowing for the creation of a
> standing Elections Committee in November of last year [1]. Per the
> implementing resolution, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has appointed
> the initial members from the recommendation of the Executive Director and
> her staff. We will be starting with 6 committee members:
>
>
>-
>
>User:Ajraddatz
>
>-
>
>User:Mardetanha
>
>-
>
>User:Ruslik0
>
>-
>
>User:Philippe
>slate
>-
>
>User:KTC 
>-
>
>User:Atropine
>
>
>
> They will be joined by two official advisors from the Wikimedia Foundation:
>
>
>-
>
>James Alexander (Manager, Trust & Safety) from Community Engagement
>-
>
>Stephen LaPorte (Senior Legal Counsel) from the WMF Legal team
>
>
> They will also be working closely with the BGC as a whole and especially
> Nataliia and me. Because I may consider applying as a candidate in the
> upcoming community-selection process I will be recusing for any discussions
> involving that election[2].
>
> The new committee, along with the BGC, will, of course, be able to choose
> how many members and advisors they truly need and how to recruit the best
> candidates. One of the first orders of business for the committee will be
> to decide on a process for expanding its membership through some form of
> open call. While there is an enormous amount of work for the committee to
> do, it can be expected that they will begin looking at:
>
>
>-
>
>The selection of a committee Chair
>-
>
>The dates and process for the upcoming community selection process (and
>consider shortening the terms and having community elections in early
> 2017,
>so that the elected members would join the Board at April meeting[3]).
>-
>
>The method of voting for that process both for the upcoming selection
>and the future and
>-
>
>The composition of the board and how to ensure a steady supply of good
>candidates (in particular, making sure that the candidates have the
>skills and expertise matching the Board skill matrix while making sure
> that
>the process is still owned by the community[4]).
>
>
> Just as the BGC is committed to greater transparency (see for example our
> recent minutes[5]), the committee will likely consult with the wider
> Wikimedia community in developing and revising election procedures within
> the scope of this charter to the greatest extent possible.
>
> This day has been a long time coming and is the result of requests made by
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF July 2016 Metrics & Activities Meeting: Thursday, August 25, 18:00 UTC

[Limayli Huguet]

REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes.



On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:27 AM, James Forrester 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place today,
> Thursday, August 25, 2016, at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is
> #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net, and the meeting will be broadcast
> as
> a live YouTube stream.
>
> Facilitator: Adam Wight, Fundraising Tech Lead
>
> Meeting Agenda:
>
>- Welcomes
>- Community update
>- Foundation top-level metrics
>- Feature
>- Research
>- Research & Product update
>- Questions/discussions
>- WikiLove
>
> Please review
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for
> further
> information about the meeting and how to participate.
>
> We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
>
> James D. Forrester
> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> jforrester at wikimedia.org
>  |
> @jdforrester
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Limayli Huguet
Front Desk Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:27 AM, James Forrester 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place today,
> Thursday, August 25, 2016, at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is
> #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net, and the meeting will be broadcast
> as
> a live YouTube stream.
>
> Facilitator: Adam Wight, Fundraising Tech Lead
>
> Meeting Agenda:
>
>- Welcomes
>- Community update
>- Foundation top-level metrics
>- Feature
>- Research
>- Research & Product update
>- Questions/discussions
>- WikiLove
>
> Please review
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for
> further
> information about the meeting and how to participate.
>
> We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
>
> James D. Forrester
> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> jforrester at wikimedia.org
>  |
> @jdforrester
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Limayli Huguet
Front Desk Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] [AffCom] [Chapters] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Salvador A]

Thanks to everyone for all the feedback. AffCom will take on consideration
all your inputs.

As Delphine and Alice have said, the idea is not to create a summary
procedure where an affiliate doesn't get a goal and inmediately the
recognition is removed. Sorry if it sounded so strict but rules always
sounds like that: if A then B. As Asaf said, we are trying to find out the
best model to try this criteria to be accomplished without creating extra
stress to our community. Furthermore, AffCom will work in good will, that
means that we'll always try to see how to mantain the existence of an
affiliate before giving the recomendation of derecognizing it.

@Ilario, if you read carefully every criteria is complex itself and
includes many variables, your argument is exactly why Affcom declined to
have only quantifiable variables, since the little space that creates an
open criteria gives our committee the capacity of analysing case by case
and keeps the diversity of our movement. In other words, the AffCom and
every chapter will introduce the color to the black and white ;)

It's worth to say that according to our previous analysis, the most of
current chapters and ThOrg accomplishes the criteria, the most of
affiliates of this kind just need to continue the good work they (we) are
doing.

Regards!


2016-08-25 10:23 GMT-05:00 Nikola Kalchev :

> First of all, thanks to the AffCom for defining the criteria. I am
> positively surprised and impressed that they managed to do it since
> Wikimania when I was told in a private chat that I could forget about
> having my user group recognised as a chapter this year. Thank you all, who
> made this possible in such a short time!
>
> I've taken the pains of reading the whole discussion and it seems that
> there are two main points of discussion:
> - quantitative vs qualitative criteria and
> - the possibility to transform chapters in user groups and disband user
> groups.
>
> I strongly oppose to only quantitative criteria. Some have to be in place
> and I expect the AffCom to define meaningful quantitative criteria for the
> recognition of user groups and chapters, but I expect that a group of
> serious and experienced community members has the right to overwrite the
> quantitative criteria if considered needed. This way the communities will
> know what to aim at, but if the standard aims are not suitable for the
> cultural and/or political context of the place where they act, exceptions
> must be allowed.
>
> Organisation should be transformable and the criteria should hold for
> everyone. There already is a process of deciding who is allowed to send
> representatives to the Wikimedia Conference and something similar should be
> set up for the upgrading and downgrading of organisations.
>
> This said, I would gladly see user groups and chapters getting as similar
> rights and responsibilities as possible. I do not understand why a rather
> inactive chapter can send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference,
> have a vote for affiliate-elected WMF seats and be allowed to sign the
> trademark agreement, while a very active user group can send 1 delegate,
> cannot decide on the future of the WMF BoT and has to go through a tedious
> process every time they wish to use the Wikimedia logo and name. This way
> aspiring user groups are being deprived of possibilities to develop and by
> doing that to enable the creation of more free content even faster. Imagine
> a chapter with five active Wikimedians and a user group with ten. These
> exist.
>
> Best regards,
> Nikola / User:Lord Bumbury
> Wikimedians of Bulgaria User Group
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Ilario Valdelli 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I appreciate the effort, it's interesting but there should more
>> flexibility
>> in my opinion.
>>
>> All is relative. Probably in Estonia, to do an outdoor activity, people
>> must wait more time than buying a loaf of bread in Venezuela. Depending on
>> the variable everyone has more difficulties than another, but it's
>> different to divide the world into good and bad.
>>
>> Some criteria should be meet, I agree, but the flexibility and more a
>> matrix of criteria makes sense.
>>
>> The biggest problem in a general concept of rules is to introduce global
>> rules that can kill the diversity.
>>
>> They will help to have standardized and well defined entities and easy to
>> monitor, but also similar and undifferentiated entities.
>>
>> To measure a maturity of a model the best would be to introduce a
>> combination of variables and not only three. It would be good to have,
>> let's say, three different parameters for each areas to have at least 9
>> different standards as a combination.
>>
>> I think that a more flexible criteria can be a valid support.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Carlos M. Colina > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Pine,
>> >
>> > El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine 

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

[Ilario Valdelli]

Hi,
I appreciate the effort, it's interesting but there should more flexibility
in my opinion.

All is relative. Probably in Estonia, to do an outdoor activity, people
must wait more time than buying a loaf of bread in Venezuela. Depending on
the variable everyone has more difficulties than another, but it's
different to divide the world into good and bad.

Some criteria should be meet, I agree, but the flexibility and more a
matrix of criteria makes sense.

The biggest problem in a general concept of rules is to introduce global
rules that can kill the diversity.

They will help to have standardized and well defined entities and easy to
monitor, but also similar and undifferentiated entities.

To measure a maturity of a model the best would be to introduce a
combination of variables and not only three. It would be good to have,
let's say, three different parameters for each areas to have at least 9
different standards as a combination.

I think that a more flexible criteria can be a valid support.

Kind regards


On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
wrote:

> Hello Pine,
>
> El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> In general, I like the new criteria.
>
> I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
> there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
> these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
> the status of affiliates.
>
>
> The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
> context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
> cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the situation
> of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of
> Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of
> bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or
> where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country
> except for the capital.
>
> If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
> story.
>
> --
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario 
Skype: valdelli
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
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] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear all,

Allow me, from my personal experiences, to bring into conscience what it
means to "be" or to represent a Wikimedia affiliate, whether it is a
chapter, a thematic organization or a WM user group.

It is a great honour to be active in a Wikimedia affiliate.

Affiliates, a chapter for example, are trusted with the use of important
trademarks and logos. For many people who are unfamiliar with the movement,
a chapter is the first contact point with everything regarding "Wikipedia".
Government and other institutions cooperate with chapters. The people
responsible in a chapter have to decide on budgets and reglements and many
other things, with effect to people inside and outside the chapter.

But what if a chapter fails?

Think of a museum that wants to cooperate with "Wikipedia" in a specific
language, and approaches the chapter related. If the chapter fails to
reply, if the museum never gets an answer of any kind even after several
attempts via different communication channels - that is a catastrophe for
the reputation of the chapter, but also for the Wikipedia language version
in question.

Or think of a volunteer who wants to organize something on an international
scale, and invites other chapters (and affiliates) to join. What if her
inclusionist approach is rewarded with deafening silence because chapter
representants are inactive but too proud to admit that?

I am a member of WMNL and WMDE. But even if I were not, these organizations
and the WMF represent me and my work on Wikipedia to the outside world. I
want them to be accountable to minimum standards - I think that I deserve
that as a Wikipedia volunteer. And I want to travel to other countries and
meet museum people and hear from them: "Wikimedia? Yes, we work together
with a Wikimedia user group here, those folks do great a great job."

It cannot be surprising that I was very happy to read Carlos' mail. I'm not
sure whether we are quite there yet, and one issue remains how to
effectively support affiliates even more, and how to provide appropriate
resources. But - whether such investions make sense depends also from the
affiliate.

Kind regards
Ziko




Am Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 schrieb Delphine Ménard :

> On 24 August 2016 at 22:50, Michael Peel  > wrote:
> >
>
> > This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says:
> > "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately
> according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)"
> > There's no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in
> this document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group
> agreements, but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this
> process document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I
> won't go into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it
> fairer to all parties.
> >
>
> I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in
> touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process,
> and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at
> actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before
> entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough
> (from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you
> can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the
> line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard
> deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other
> end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think
> it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities
> often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
>
> --
> @notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
> lost.
> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> http://blog.notanendive.org
> Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.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,
> 
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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

[Alice Wiegand]

I agree with Delphine. And I think it's worth to mention that the immediate
termination is for "serious and urgent cases" only and that there is a more
partnering process for less serious cases.

Alice.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Delphine Ménard 
wrote:

> On 24 August 2016 at 22:50, Michael Peel  wrote:
> >
>
> > This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says:
> > "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately
> according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)"
> > There's no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in
> this document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group
> agreements, but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this
> process document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I
> won't go into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it
> fairer to all parties.
> >
>
> I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in
> touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process,
> and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at
> actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before
> entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough
> (from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you
> can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the
> line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard
> deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other
> end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think
> it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities
> often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
>
> --
> @notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
> lost.
> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> http://blog.notanendive.org
> Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.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,
> 
>
___
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

[Delphine Ménard]

On 24 August 2016 at 22:50, Michael Peel  wrote:
>

> This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says:
> "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately 
> according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)"
> There's no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in this 
> document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group agreements, 
> but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this process 
> document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I won't go 
> into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it fairer to all 
> parties.
>

I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in
touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process,
and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at
actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before
entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough
(from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you
can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the
line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard
deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other
end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think
it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities
often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.

Best,

Delphine

-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.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,