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

2015-10-18 Thread Gregory Varnum
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 activities and not 
your status as a user group. It is a misleading and discouraging to others to 
imply that running a user group in the United States requires all of that 
liability and workload. User groups are not required to become legal entities 
(which Cascadia has opted to do), and can be as simple as a student club at a 
university. In other words, not all user groups are alike. The level of 
liability is tied to the activities the group engages in, not the affiliations 
model.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:56 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> 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 handling funds
> and/or hosting public events. Most of the paperwork is the same whether
> there are 5 people or 500 people involved, so it's a pretty complex
> operation, particularly if volunteers are dealing with all of this with no
> paid help. I had some experience with business law prior to my involvement
> in Cascadia Wikimedians, and even with that background I'm finding that
> there is a lot to learn and a lot of paperwork to deal with in order to
> keep our user group on solid legal ground.
> 
> Pine
> 
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Schneider, Manuel <
> manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
> 
>> 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 groups have limited liability and responsibilities, access
>> to ressources is controlled on a case by case basis eg. through the Grant
>> Avisory Committee and every year user groups must be renewed, for this we
>> want so see a simple report. So every ug with the minimum of activity - a
>> report written, having responded to our follow-up e-mail - is renewed.
>> 
>> /Manuel
>> 
>> --
>> sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario Valdelli <
>> valde...@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> 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 groups: they can only born.
>>> 
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
>>> 
>>> Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't
>>> monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to
>>> freeze) some old entities when they become essentially inactive or
>> silent.
>>> 
>>> In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of
>>> these groups would have a sense.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards
>>> 
>>> On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
 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 have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next
>> year. This growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the approval
>> process to be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. So, from our
>> perspective, this is something we have been preparing for from the start,
>> and not a surprise.
 
 Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is
>> a bad idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies
>> across the models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes
>> over time, and implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates
>> cannot, when we continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The
>> current criteria for WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more
>> appropriate. Additionally, dividing them will not save much money, if any,
>> as there would still presumably be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.
 
 I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more
>> support, but I do not think those efforts will be served well by further
>> dividing them.
 
 -greg (User:Varnent)
 Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
 
 

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

2015-10-18 Thread Pine W
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 unincorporated association if we didn't
register. That is indeed much simpler, but it comes with its own set of
risks. I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion of the legal issues
here, but let's just say that it's not a zero-cost and zero-risk approach.

That's a good point that there's a disjuncture between the kind of
activities that a group does and the affiliations model. For example, a
chapter could be quite small and a user group can be quite large, and there
is some flex in the issues that each will experience.

I'm happy to talk off-list about the legal issues if you wish. My head is
pretty packed with it, since I've been dealing with a lot of it over the
past few months as we're trying to scale up our activities and we're
looking at hosting the Wikimedia Conference next year. As you say, other
groups with different kinds of activities and ambitions might choose to
take a different and less careful approach. For example, a college
Wikipedia club with limited growth ambitions may have a lot less to think
about than we do.

I feel like I'm getting muddled in my explanation so I'll stop here and
just say that I'm happy to continue this conversation off list. Hopefully
we can get back to the discussion about affiliate user groups and mentoring
in general.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> 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 activities and
> not your status as a user group. It is a misleading and discouraging to
> others to imply that running a user group in the United States requires all
> of that liability and workload. User groups are not required to become
> legal entities (which Cascadia has opted to do), and can be as simple as a
> student club at a university. In other words, not all user groups are
> alike. The level of liability is tied to the activities the group engages
> in, not the affiliations model.
>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:56 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > 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 handling funds
> > and/or hosting public events. Most of the paperwork is the same whether
> > there are 5 people or 500 people involved, so it's a pretty complex
> > operation, particularly if volunteers are dealing with all of this with
> no
> > paid help. I had some experience with business law prior to my
> involvement
> > in Cascadia Wikimedians, and even with that background I'm finding that
> > there is a lot to learn and a lot of paperwork to deal with in order to
> > keep our user group on solid legal ground.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Schneider, Manuel <
> > manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 groups have limited liability and responsibilities,
> access
> >> to ressources is controlled on a case by case basis eg. through the
> Grant
> >> Avisory Committee and every year user groups must be renewed, for this
> we
> >> want so see a simple report. So every ug with the minimum of activity -
> a
> >> report written, having responded to our follow-up e-mail - is renewed.
> >>
> >> /Manuel
> >>
> >> --
> >> sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario Valdelli
> <
> >> valde...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> 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 groups: they can only born.
> >>>
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
> >>>
> >>> Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't
> >>> monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best 

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

2015-10-18 Thread Pine W
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 handling funds
and/or hosting public events. Most of the paperwork is the same whether
there are 5 people or 500 people involved, so it's a pretty complex
operation, particularly if volunteers are dealing with all of this with no
paid help. I had some experience with business law prior to my involvement
in Cascadia Wikimedians, and even with that background I'm finding that
there is a lot to learn and a lot of paperwork to deal with in order to
keep our user group on solid legal ground.

Pine

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Schneider, Manuel <
manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote:

> 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 groups have limited liability and responsibilities, access
> to ressources is controlled on a case by case basis eg. through the Grant
> Avisory Committee and every year user groups must be renewed, for this we
> want so see a simple report. So every ug with the minimum of activity - a
> report written, having responded to our follow-up e-mail - is renewed.
>
> /Manuel
>
> --
> sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario Valdelli <
> valde...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > 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 groups: they can only born.
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
> >
> > Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't
> > monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to
> > freeze) some old entities when they become essentially inactive or
> silent.
> >
> > In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of
> > these groups would have a sense.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> > > 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 have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next
> year. This growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the approval
> process to be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. So, from our
> perspective, this is something we have been preparing for from the start,
> and not a surprise.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is
> a bad idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies
> across the models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes
> over time, and implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates
> cannot, when we continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The
> current criteria for WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more
> appropriate. Additionally, dividing them will not save much money, if any,
> as there would still presumably be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.
> > >
> > > I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more
> support, but I do not think those efforts will be served well by further
> dividing them.
> > >
> > > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > Tel: +41764821371
> > http://www.wikimedia.ch
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

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

2015-10-18 Thread Pine W
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 volunteer time
to do mentoring, so I would like to see more proactive support from WMF.

Pine

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> 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 groups: they can only born.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
>
> Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't
> monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to freeze)
> some old entities when they become essentially inactive or silent.
>
> In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of
> these groups would have a sense.
>
> Kind regards
>
> On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
>
>> 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
>> have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next year. This
>> growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the approval process to
>> be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. So, from our
>> perspective, this is something we have been preparing for from the start,
>> and not a surprise.
>>
>> Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is a
>> bad idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies across
>> the models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes over
>> time, and implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates
>> cannot, when we continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The
>> current criteria for WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more
>> appropriate. Additionally, dividing them will not save much money, if any,
>> as there would still presumably be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.
>>
>> I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more
>> support, but I do not think those efforts will be served well by further
>> dividing them.
>>
>> -greg (User:Varnent)
>> Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
>>
>>
>>
> --
> 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
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2015-10-18 Thread Pine W
*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 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 unincorporated association if we didn't
> register. That is indeed much simpler, but it comes with its own set of
> risks. I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion of the legal issues
> here, but let's just say that it's not a zero-cost and zero-risk approach.
>
> That's a good point that there's a disjuncture between the kind of
> activities that a group does and the affiliations model. For example, a
> chapter could be quite small and a user group can be quite large, and there
> is some flex in the issues that each will experience.
>
> I'm happy to talk off-list about the legal issues if you wish. My head is
> pretty packed with it, since I've been dealing with a lot of it over the
> past few months as we're trying to scale up our activities and we're
> looking at hosting the Wikimedia Conference next year. As you say, other
> groups with different kinds of activities and ambitions might choose to
> take a different and less careful approach. For example, a college
> Wikipedia club with limited growth ambitions may have a lot less to think
> about than we do.
>
> I feel like I'm getting muddled in my explanation so I'll stop here and
> just say that I'm happy to continue this conversation off list. Hopefully
> we can get back to the discussion about affiliate user groups and mentoring
> in general.
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Gregory Varnum  > wrote:
>
>> 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 activities
>> and not your status as a user group. It is a misleading and discouraging to
>> others to imply that running a user group in the United States requires all
>> of that liability and workload. User groups are not required to become
>> legal entities (which Cascadia has opted to do), and can be as simple as a
>> student club at a university. In other words, not all user groups are
>> alike. The level of liability is tied to the activities the group engages
>> in, not the affiliations model.
>>
>> -greg (User:Varnent)
>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>>
>> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:56 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>> >
>> > 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 handling funds
>> > and/or hosting public events. Most of the paperwork is the same whether
>> > there are 5 people or 500 people involved, so it's a pretty complex
>> > operation, particularly if volunteers are dealing with all of this with
>> no
>> > paid help. I had some experience with business law prior to my
>> involvement
>> > in Cascadia Wikimedians, and even with that background I'm finding that
>> > there is a lot to learn and a lot of paperwork to deal with in order to
>> > keep our user group on solid legal ground.
>> >
>> > Pine
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Schneider, Manuel <
>> > manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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 groups have limited liability and responsibilities,
>> access
>> >> to ressources is controlled on a case by case basis eg. through the
>> Grant
>> >> Avisory Committee and every year user groups must be renewed, for this
>> we
>> >> want so see a simple report. So every ug with the minimum of activity
>> - a
>> >> report written, having responded to our follow-up e-mail - is renewed.
>> >>
>> >> /Manuel
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario
>> Valdelli <
>> >> valde...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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 

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

2015-10-18 Thread Gnangarra
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
liable for the activities of any person who operates under the name. Even
grants from the WMF could be taxable as income if your not part of a
registered organisation

 I think care should be used when chosing terms to describe affiliates and
their requirements especially terms like liability which have legal
implications,

Does the WMF/Affliiates committee check if due diligence is done on the
local legal aspects for UGs before recognising them?

On 19 October 2015 at 13:27, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> 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 activities and
> not your status as a user group. It is a misleading and discouraging to
> others to imply that running a user group in the United States requires all
> of that liability and workload. User groups are not required to become
> legal entities (which Cascadia has opted to do), and can be as simple as a
> student club at a university. In other words, not all user groups are
> alike. The level of liability is tied to the activities the group engages
> in, not the affiliations model.
>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:56 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > 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 handling funds
> > and/or hosting public events. Most of the paperwork is the same whether
> > there are 5 people or 500 people involved, so it's a pretty complex
> > operation, particularly if volunteers are dealing with all of this with
> no
> > paid help. I had some experience with business law prior to my
> involvement
> > in Cascadia Wikimedians, and even with that background I'm finding that
> > there is a lot to learn and a lot of paperwork to deal with in order to
> > keep our user group on solid legal ground.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Schneider, Manuel <
> > manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 groups have limited liability and responsibilities,
> access
> >> to ressources is controlled on a case by case basis eg. through the
> Grant
> >> Avisory Committee and every year user groups must be renewed, for this
> we
> >> want so see a simple report. So every ug with the minimum of activity -
> a
> >> report written, having responded to our follow-up e-mail - is renewed.
> >>
> >> /Manuel
> >>
> >> --
> >> sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario Valdelli
> <
> >> valde...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> 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 groups: they can only born.
> >>>
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
> >>>
> >>> Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't
> >>> monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to
> >>> freeze) some old entities when they become essentially inactive or
> >> silent.
> >>>
> >>> In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of
> >>> these groups would have a sense.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards
> >>>
> >>> On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
>  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 have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next
> >> year. This growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the
> approval
> >> process to be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. 

[Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Philippine Wikimedia Community User Group (PhilWiki Community)

2015-10-18 Thread Carlos M. Colina

Dear all,

On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I am honoured to announce the 
recognition [1] of Philippine Wikimedia Community User Group [2] (a.k.a. 
PhilWiki Community) as a Wikimedia User Group. Among their goals are 
creating, organizing, developing and engaging in activities that promote 
free, responsibly open-content resources and reference materials in 
English, and languages from the Philippines, particularly in Bikol 
Sentral, Rinconada Bikol, Tagalog, Pangasinan and Cebuano, and others 
where there are existing communities.


Let's welcome the newest member of the family of affiliates!

Regards,
Carlos


1: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Philippine_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_provisional_approval_-_October_2015

2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PhilWiki_Community

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."

Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
www.wikimedia.org.ve 

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Israel survey among HEWP editors

2015-10-18 Thread Michal Lester
> Thanks Luis. added my notes next to yours.
>
> Hi, Michal-
> Very interesting, thanks for sharing! Some comments in-line:
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Michal Lester 
> wrote:
>
> > We are pleased to share with you the initial results of the HEWP editors
> > survey:
> >
> >
> > Wikimedia Israel conducted an editors’ survey in August among HEWP
> editors.
> > The questionnaire was based on the WMNL survey in order to to enable
> > international learning  in the future.
> >
> > The survey had two target audiences: active editors (with voting rights
> > [1])
> > and contributors. The questionnaire was the same but distributed
> > differently. Active editors got an invitation to participate on their
> talk
> > page, while contributors were invited through a “Sitenotice”. Some 151
> > active editors and 171 contributors participated.
> >
> > *Gender*: Almost 20% of the respondents were women.
> >
> > Among the active editors, only 10% were women whereas 29% of the
> > contributors were women. The explanations (open answers) for limited
> > diversity among the editors ranged from a negative work atmosphere to a
> > conservative point of view about gender roles.
> >
> > Editors in general did not find the low participation of women negatively
> > affects the coverage of topics in Wikipedia.
>
>
> Did this vary by gender? i.e., do both men and women agree that low
> participation affects coverage?
>

  We checked again the data and there is difference but not significant.
But most of the women (82%) think that
low participation of women has an impact on the working environment. While
men (44%) think that it has only some impact.

>
>
> > Answering a question about how
> > to increase the participation of women, respondents offered workshops,
> > encouraging high school students to participate, expanding the wiki-women
> > group and providing general support.
> >
> > *New editors*: A large majority of editors acknowledged that new editors
> > wanted to contribute to HEWP. They recognized the importance of a
> > continuous arrival of new editors and felt that new editors were welcome.
> >
>
> Did this vary by age of editors? i.e., did new editors agree that new
> editors were welcome? :)
>

Yes but 44% of the contributors agree that new editors were welcome.
23% do not agree with the saying. Only 31% of contributors are new editors
(less than a year) so it is
hard to say because we do not analyze the newbies' answers apart from the
contributors.

>
>
> > *Work Atmosphere*: 34% of the respondents reported that they were
> satisfied
> > with the work atmosphere on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Only 5.5% of the
> editors
> > were not satisfied with it at all. However, 46% noted that there was a
> > large number of conflicts. Active editors (66%) reported such conflicts
> > more than contributors (29%). Almost 46% of the active editors stated
> that
> > they felt like they were in a conflict in the past six months, while only
> > 29% of contributors expressed the same. 61% of the editors indicated that
> > conflicts were either mostly or sometimes resolved in a good way.
> >
>
> Interesting!
>
>
> > Ideology, worldviews and egos were considered to play a major role in the
> > development of conflicts. Contributors also mentioned lack of patience
> from
> > the active editors.
>
>
>
> > *Wikimedia Israel*: 60% of the respondents are familiar with Wikimedia
> > Israel. As expected active editors are more acquainted with WMIL than
> > contributors. Among them, 78% agree with the statement that WMIL provides
> > practical support to editors.
> >
>
> That's terrific.
>
>
> > The survey provides important information for the HEWP editors’ community
> > and for Wikimedia Israel.
> > Wikimedia Israel will learn the data and use it to develop better support
> > for editors, contributors and newbies.
> >
>
> Please do keep us up to date on this; it would be very interesting to see a
> model for transforming data into action. (My own department has been
> thinking about this in light of our recent hire of a survey specialist;
> hopefully something for us to keep improving on across the movement.)
>



> Luis
>
Michal
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2015-10-18 Thread Leigh Thelmadatter
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 stretched thin. Wiki Learning 
was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years of trying, but 
we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately, we are already 
pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de Monterrey.  
Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just now 
got some kind of recognition and voice.


> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700
> From: wiki.p...@gmail.com
> To: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> CC: khar...@wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups
> 
> It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can
> Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced
> formations?
> 
> Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the
> budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to
> accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was
> thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small
> affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us, with
> interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to our
> increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences
> for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF can
> be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration of
> a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE, or
> others?
> 
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2015-10-18 Thread Pine W
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 with proactive
outreach and mentorship for user groups. The organizations in the FDC
process collectively have thousands of WMF staff hours focused on them each
year, when they are generally the most mature groups. I think that WMF
might get better total ROI by increasing the proportion of time and
resources that are devoted to supporting and developing small affiliates.
The community capacity development framework is a step in that direction,
and I hope that we'll see a ramp up in WMF investment in small affiliates
starting this quarter.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA 2015

2015-10-18 Thread Rob
Andrew Lih recorded our panel "Journalism and the Online Information
Community", but I'm not sure when/if that video will make it to the web.

I can't speak for the organizers, but it is my understanding that Gregory
Kohs was banned under the Safe Space policy, not because he was a critic.
Critics and even Wikipediocracy members were welcome to WikiConference.
Andreas Kolbe, for example, participated in our panel discussion and nobody
even hinted to either of us that he was not welcome.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 4:41 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Anthony Cole wrote:
> >I've been following the conference online and I congratulate the
> >organisers - some fascinating presentations and the videos are excellent.
> >A link to the videos:
> >
> >http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/2015/Schedule
>
> A big thank you to all of the people involved in organizing and running
> this year's conference! I really enjoyed being able to have the National
> Archives as the venue and the conference itself was well-run and engaging.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2015-10-18 Thread Ilario Valdelli
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 groups: they can only born.


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups

Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't 
monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to 
freeze) some old entities when they become essentially inactive or silent.


In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of 
these groups would have a sense.


Kind regards

On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:

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 have approved 
around 20. That number will likely increase next year. This growing momentum is 
why we have continued to tweak the approval process to be faster and able to 
handle the growing momentum. So, from our perspective, this is something we 
have been preparing for from the start, and not a surprise.

Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is a bad 
idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies across the 
models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes over time, and 
implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates cannot, when we 
continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The current criteria for 
WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more appropriate. Additionally, 
dividing them will not save much money, if any, as there would still presumably 
be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.

I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more support, but 
I do not think those efforts will be served well by further dividing them.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee




--
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
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2015-10-18 Thread Gnangarra
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 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 stretched thin. Wiki
> Learning was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years
> of trying, but we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately,
> we are already pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de
> Monterrey.
> Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just
> now got some kind of recognition and voice.
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700
> > From: wiki.p...@gmail.com
> > To: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > CC: khar...@wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups
> >
> > It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can
> > Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced
> > formations?
> >
> > Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the
> > budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to
> > accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was
> > thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small
> > affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us,
> with
> > interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to
> our
> > increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences
> > for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF
> can
> > be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration
> of
> > a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE,
> or
> > others?
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2015-10-18 Thread Gregory Varnum
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 have approved 
around 20. That number will likely increase next year. This growing momentum is 
why we have continued to tweak the approval process to be faster and able to 
handle the growing momentum. So, from our perspective, this is something we 
have been preparing for from the start, and not a surprise.

Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is a bad 
idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies across the 
models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes over time, and 
implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates cannot, when we 
continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The current criteria for 
WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more appropriate. Additionally, 
dividing them will not save much money, if any, as there would still presumably 
be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.

I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more support, but 
I do not think those efforts will be served well by further dividing them.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

> On Oct 18, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> 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 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 stretched thin. Wiki
>> Learning was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years
>> of trying, but we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately,
>> we are already pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de
>> Monterrey.
>> Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just
>> now got some kind of recognition and voice.
>> 
>> 
>>> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700
>>> From: wiki.p...@gmail.com
>>> To: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> CC: khar...@wikimedia.org
>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups
>>> 
>>> It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can
>>> Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced
>>> formations?
>>> 
>>> Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the
>>> budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to
>>> accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was
>>> thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small
>>> affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us,
>> with
>>> interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to
>> our
>>> increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences
>>> for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF
>> can
>>> be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration
>> of
>>> a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE,
>> or
>>> others?
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> 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
>> 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
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

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

2015-10-18 Thread Rodrigo Padula
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 step to move forward to a thematic organization 
or chapter based on the learnings and experiences acquired after some projects 
and activities. It can be a good opportunity to professionalize the community 
and avoid frustrated attempts to create a chapter or thematic organization with 
no previous experience.



For sure we will need more guidance and dedicated activities during the next 
conference in Berlin. Having a dedicated event, IMHO will not generate the same 
opportunity that we have to learn from chapters like WM UK, WM MX, WM DE and 
etc in an event like WMCON.



For me, the opportunity to see what active chapters are doing was crucial to 
organize here in Brazil 2 editions of WLE and our first edition of WLM.



I guess we are in the right direction and the types of grants available, 
including the new simple annual plan project, will generate excellent impacts 
to the movement during the next years.



Rodrigo Padula

Coordenador de Projetos

Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa

http://www.wikimedia.org.br

21 99326-0558






  On Dom, 18 Out 2015 12:08:54 -0200 Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com 
wrote 




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 osama...@hotmail.com

wrote:



 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 stretched thin. Wiki

 Learning was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years

 of trying, but we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately,

 we are already pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de

 Monterrey.

 Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just

 now got some kind of recognition and voice.





  Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700

  From: wiki.p...@gmail.com

  To: ma...@wikimedia.org.ve; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

  CC: khar...@wikimedia.org

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

 

  It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. 
Can

  Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced

  formations?

 

  Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the

  budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched 
to

  accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was

  thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to 
small

  affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us,

 with

  interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due 
to

 our

  increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate 
conferences

  for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from 
WMF

 can

  be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the 
duration

 of

  a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, 
WMDE,

 or

  others?

 

  Pine

  ___

  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe;



 ___

 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe;









-- 

GN.

President Wikimedia Australia

WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra

Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

___

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe;





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

2015-10-18 Thread Schneider, Manuel
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 groups have limited liability and responsibilities, access to 
ressources is controlled on a case by case basis eg. through the Grant Avisory 
Committee and every year user groups must be renewed, for this we want so see a 
simple report. So every ug with the minimum of activity - a report written, 
having responded to our follow-up e-mail - is renewed.

/Manuel

-- 
sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario Valdelli 
:
>
> 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 groups: they can only born.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
>
> Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't 
> monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to 
> freeze) some old entities when they become essentially inactive or silent.
>
> In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of 
> these groups would have a sense.
>
> Kind regards
>
> On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> > 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 
> > have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next year. This 
> > growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the approval process to 
> > be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. So, from our 
> > perspective, this is something we have been preparing for from the start, 
> > and not a surprise.
> >
> > Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is a bad 
> > idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies across the 
> > models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes over time, 
> > and implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates cannot, when 
> > we continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The current 
> > criteria for WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more 
> > appropriate. Additionally, dividing them will not save much money, if any, 
> > as there would still presumably be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.
> >
> > I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more support, 
> > but I do not think those efforts will be served well by further dividing 
> > them.
> >
> > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> 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
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 11, Issue 41 -- 14 October 2015

2015-10-18 Thread Wikipedia Signpost
Blog: Third Wikimedia Spain conference takes place in Madrid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/Blog

Editorial: Why the news media needs a Wikipedian in residence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/Editorial

Op-ed: WikiConference USA 2015: Built on good faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/Op-ed

Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/Traffic_report

WikiConference Report: WikiConference USA 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/WikiConference_Report

News and notes: Fundraising: 2015–2016 Q1 Update sparks mailing list debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/News_and_notes

Featured content: A fistful of dollars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/Featured_content

Technology report: Tech news in brief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/Technology_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2015-10-14

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14


https://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,