Does AffCom report on the status or disposition of applications for
affiliation? Is there a grid of pending applications, prior applications
and outcomes (with explanations, if negative)? That would be a handy way of
increasing transparency for this process for both participants and
community
Hi Nathan,
There is a shortish overview at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Reports/2012#State_of_affiliates
.
In general, we very rarely reject applications outright publicly -- more
often than not, an application will run until we have worked with the group
to the point
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user
groups is to have a history of projects, which was not further defined
are still outside the
system?
From: bdamo...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 14:17:13 +0200
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014
I'm still stuck on bylaws. Why is AffCom asking for bylaws?
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still stuck on bylaws. Why is AffCom asking for bylaws?
Depends on the context.
We do review them, or at least try to, whenever a group (chapter, user
group, thematic organisation) decides to have them, in order to make
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Obviously, having more user groups would be great, but we do not
currently
know how many are not being created due to the process.
It is entirely possible, that the creation of active user groups (without
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user
groups is to have a history of projects, which was not further defined
but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has
been
Compare the process of forming a Meetup group. There are basic
standards of behavior and usage -- applied via review after the fact,
soft-security style -- and measures of activity. But as soon as you
finish filling out a form describing your group, it has been created +
is visible online + has
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Wiki Borregos has been operating in this manner for some time. See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Borregos_CCM_Student_User_Group
We originally put our info as a student club, but when it became obvious
that
Borregos means rams the mascot of the Tec de Monterrey.
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:17:49 -0400
From: nawr...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter osama
Good news, Greg!
This is a great initiative which can provide a lot of support especially
for younger affiliations. I'm curious how it will be accepted and what's
the kind of support affiliations ask for. Please keep us in the loop.
Alice.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Gregory Varnum
Thanks AffComm - it is great to see this moving forward.
I have added this info to the Organisational Development page on Meta;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development
Chris
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com
wrote:
Greetings,
Based
Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that
affiliates find useful.
It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all do
with affiliates and publish the information.
Sydney
From: sydney.po...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that
affiliates find
in limbo with no indication of how
and when they will be resolved.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:36:09 -0400
From: sydney.po...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Thank you AffCom committee members for taking
Quick question:
The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
process to be shortened to a few weeks.
When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
take no more than 15 minutes. What currently takes time?
Sam
___
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
available at the time of application).
However, currently there
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
It looks like the main steps are
a) appointing a liaison
b) having some
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30
We are moving toward a process that involves 1-2 people primarily and then
a full vote by the committee (which right now procedurally takes one week).
From my perspective, the delays are often related to confusion over the
process, or failure to actually initiate things with AffCom. We have about
@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions
SJ,
Aside from the questions being on Meta (which they soon will), and the
one-person authority - this is very close to the process we are working
from now.
Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a request comes in, someone is
assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that person feels
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos
application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos
application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
actively now
Hi Sam,
El 29/05/2014 10:18 p.m., Sam Klein escribió:
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
It looks like the
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu
wrote:
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
from you in months. This seems to work
a lot faster.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
From: gregory.var...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki
OK so then why no action, no communication until I write something here?
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:52:40 +0300
From: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Hi Leigh,
As Greg just said it, we
of that including the board members for a year
now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months. This
seems to work a lot faster.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
From: gregory.var...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
other active GAC members given the
relatively low bar required for UG status - we'll be paying way more
attention at the details of the grant and the applicant(s) than on whether
they have AffCom recognition. I'd
:52:40 +0300
From: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Hi Leigh,
As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more
complications. We are doing the best we can to speed
Wonderful! I look forward to hearing something in the next weeks.
From: bdamo...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 00:18:02 +0200
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Hi Leigh,
Actually, we were discussing your group's
35 matches
Mail list logo
