Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Hi all, Please have a look at the timeline for the Wikimedia Conference 2016[1], which already incorporates the feedback from last year: This year, we will work closer with the participants when we create the programme. In the registration, we will ask for concrete needs for capacity building

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Hi, My suggestion is to take care with using the term "limited liability", because it sounds like this might mean a different thing in my jurisdiction and in my jurisdiction. As has been pointed out, volunteers in a user group may be exposing themselves to significant risk of something goes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Hoi, I very much appreciate the format ... This program has shown its quality over the years and is unafraid to ask what matters most. It is why people will work together well. It is because it is about their agenda and the agenda holds the items they care for. Wonderful ! Thanks, GerardM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

If it's OK, I'd like to return to the subject of mentoring. I'm wondering if Affcom might be able to facilitate a kind of matchmaking process where some of the more established affiliates mentor some of the newer affiliates. We have some very informal ways that this happens now, and I'm wondering

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

All affiliates are required to follow local laws, and that is checked when we are asked or it is needed. Our affiliates are increasingly diverse, so much of this really applies more to chapters and thematic organizations than all user groups. A majority of user groups are not legal entities.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

being able to seek assistance and advice from Affcom for specific needs is good concept because no matter how large the organisation mentoring in an invaluable service we can all use. The issue will be in ensuring the mentors have the skills, the knowledge and importantly the time(at the right

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Hoi, Ask yourself, you want more mentoring and in front of you are 50 user groups; you do not understand their language, you do not know their culture. They do the necessary self administration, the minimal requirements to inform about whatever it is they do so well. They do describe that they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Hoi, The difference is in being able to get support when you need it and a model where support is pushed on you. Yes, support may be helpful but when it is given for all the wrong reasons, it is counter productive. Thanks, GerardM On 19 October 2015 at 13:41, Gnangarra

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Hi Pine, I recall that several representatives at the User Group meetup at the WMCON last spring noted that they would like to see more sessions that focused on the needs of smaller affiliates, and I am glad that you brought it up. It would be great to start a list of the kinds of session topics

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

It is limited liability on both parts, meaning that user groups are not required to become legal entities, or maintain the higher reporting and capacity requirements that chapters and thematic organizations are required to maintain. The considerations that you are mentioning are tied to your

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

I think the issue is with the word "liability". That has a legal meaning to me that perhaps it wouldn't to others. It's a bit of a misunderstanding that user groups "are not required to become legal entities". We would be a legal entity whether or not we registered; we'd simply be an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Hi Manuel, Can you clarify what you mean by "limited liability" for user groups? I think you mean limited responsibilities as far as WMF is concerned. As far as the United States authorities are concerned, we have plenty of paperwork that we're expected to deal with, particularly if we're

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Ilario, I agree that I would like to see more proactive mentoring and support. Some user groups may get born and die in ways that are fine. But others that are very promising for growth may wilt away due to lack of nurturing and support. I get the impression that Affcom itself is short on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

*headdesk* Wikiconference USA, not Wikimedia Conference. Apologies to our friends in WMDE. On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Pine W wrote: > I think the issue is with the word "liability". That has a legal meaning > to me that perhaps it wouldn't to others. > > It's a bit

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Every country is different, in Australia you cant have a bank account for a User group without being registered, you cant work with GLAM without having public liability insurance for which the UG needs to be registered to obtain. If you operate unregistered all members are personally legally

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Im not sure now is the right time to divide affiliates. Thematic organizations and user groups are still new and there is still a heavy preference towards chapters. User groups are not necessarily small, and chapters are not necessarily large. I hear what you are saying about resources being

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Ok, maybe more attention to user groups and small affiliates at WMCON is the way to go. I heard at WMCON 2015 that WMF was considering assigning more resources to supporting user groups, in addition to the community capacity development research. I would still like to see that happen, such as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

I personally think that the main concern, in this proliferation of groups, is an lack of the implementation of a "good governance". A user group is like a body, it can born, can develop and can die. At the moment there is an unclear guideline about the monitoring and the development of these

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Any process that divides the community isnt good for the community, we already seeing the effects of poor decisions being taken by groups and individuals acting in isolation On 18 October 2015 at 20:02, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote: > Im not sure now is the right time to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) has been preparing for the increased momentum since the user group model was implemented, and it follows a pattern that we’ve been seeing over the past couple of years. In 2013, we approved 10 user groups, last year we approved 19, and so far this year we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

IMHO, the idea of the user groups is not to divide the community, the main goal is to create the opportunity for small communities to work in the same direction, learn with each other and have a framework to work together, learning from and sharing experiences. The user group is an important

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

Hi Ilario, it is the will of the board to make it easy to start a recognised body to do work and it is totally acceptable if these bodies also die after having fulfilled their purpose - or grow and develop into other affiliation models. So the criterium for us is easy entry. Anyway the user