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

2016-08-22 Thread Carlos Colina (Maor_X)
Hello Ben,

If there are chapters that are not meeting the criteria proposed, in those 
cases the AffCom may reach out to them to help fix the issue, stimulate the 
organization of activities, fix governance issues, whatever that may be. Of 
course, failing to meet the criteria doesn't mean immediate derecognition, that 
could only happen if a chapter fails repetitively to meet the criteria and does 
not take measures suggested within a timeframe established and agreed between 
all parts. Then the AffCom would recommend the change of the status, which we 
hope not to need to do. It should never be like pushing a "delete button"!

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Ben Creasy" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic 
organisation criteria
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 11:22 PM

Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do
not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense for
that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to
meeting standards or losing their status.

What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high
standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee
and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters
have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation
period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.

I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters
becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and
create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's
the current process?

On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W"  wrote:

> > What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
> One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
> should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
> harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
> apply,
> which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
> inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
> set of criteria.
> As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
> flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of
> the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
> one
> or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
> clearly
> defined.
> > How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> > a chapter as a user group?
> I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached
> to
> already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
> existing
> chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter
> status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
> activity
> in Wikimedia.
> Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
> are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or
> if an
> especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
> happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
> decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
> which
> now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
> categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
> this
> "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it
> would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
> its
> levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
> than
> allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
> responsibilities and expectations.
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia 
Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son 
marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación 
Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas 
pertenecen a sus 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

2016-02-25 Thread Carlos Colina (Maor_X)
Congrats, Katy!!!

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Maggie Dennis" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" , 

Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team
Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2016 1:02 AM

Hello, all.

I am delighted to announce that Katy Love has agreed to step into the role
of Director of Resources in the Community Engagement department, picking up
the baton so ably carried by Siko Bouterse before her. Katy has been with
the Wikimedia Foundation since January 2013, beginning as the first program
officer to work with the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). I’m grateful
to her for moving into this role and am looking forward to collaborating
with her closely in WMF’s Community Engagement department.

We will be hiring her replacement to oversee the FDC/full annual plan
grants program in the weeks ahead.

Best regards,


P.S. Their page!

Maggie Dennis
Interim Sr. Director of Community Engagement
Director, Support and Safety
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are we so boring?

2015-12-08 Thread Carlos Colina (Maor_X)
WellIberocoopians always have fun ;-)

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Milos Rancic" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why are we so boring?
Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2015 3:36 PM

We are. It's not about particular thread on this list, it's about our
existence. Initially I thought it's because the level of our
responsibility, but eventually I've realized we are simply boring and
nobody bothers about that.

Our meetings and conferences look like the meetings of a regional branch of
German Social Democratic Party at the best. In regular occasions they are
more like the meetings of a village cell of a communist party from an East
European country during the 80s.

This enormous distance between the value of our work and ideals and
presenting ourselves to *us* in the range between shiny snake oil merchants
and demagogues nobody trusts is quite striking. (OK, there is one more end,
thus making a triangle: highly specialized topics which require highly
specialized knowledge to participate.)

The distance is also quite striking because the most witty people I ever
met are from the Wikimedia movement itself.

It's endemic. From local Wikimedian meetings to Wikimania. The most
interesting part of such events is talking with other Wikimedians.
Listening talks, lectures and ceremonies is the worst option. Workshops and
collective decision making are like gambling: it could be constructive, but
it could also be not just wasting time but occult session with the only one
goal: to drain the energy from the participants.

On average, I would rather spend two times more time talking with a
Wikimedian than listening her or his lecture or talk.

There are some straight forward techniques. For example, we could work on
making our talks much better. We could also ask HR professionals how to
make our live interaction better.

However, being boring is somehow quite deeply rooted inside of our culture.
While trying to become "serious", we lost our ability to be playful.
Creativity is something we treat as the least important of our activities.

This is not something which could be fixed quickly. There is no a pill to
magically cure it. But we could start thinking about this as a problem and
start implementing various ideas to tackle it.

I wouldn't say that our revolution forbids us to dance. (Whenever somebody
from Bay Area is DJ-ing, we dance and it's beautiful, no matter how trashy
the music is.) But I am sure we can do better.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Wikimedians of Republic of Srpska

2015-10-07 Thread Carlos Colina (Maor_X)
Hi Cornelius,

As part of the new approval/recognition process, a resolution is no longer 
required in these cases. The records used for tracking are in the 
usergroups-applications mailing list, which start when a group submits a 
request for recognition, as well as the official announcement on Wikimedia-l.


Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Cornelius Kibelka" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Wikimedians of Republic of Srpska
Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2015 1:19 PM


Carlos, could you please publish the AffCom liaison approval resolutions
for the Republia Srpska UG and Wikimedia MA UG? It's missing (and I can't
find it in your user contributions). I'd like to translate it and put it
into the German Wikimedia movement newsletter.


Cornelius Kibelka

Twitter: @jaancornelius

On 7 October 2015 at 01:45, Cristian Consonni 

> Il 06/Ott/2015 23:11, "Asaf Bartov"  ha scritto:
> >
> > (As a courtesy for the possibly-confused: [[Republika Srpska
> > ]].)
> I have to say that it took me a while.
> Congrats to the new group!
> Cristian
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: