Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
Hi Nemo, Cascadia Wikimedians' current discussions with Affcom and WMF Legal are about some wording on the Affiliation Agreement document. We have not discussed becoming a chapter in any great detail, and as you note the WMF Board created a longevity requirement. We have had informal meetings in Cascadia for such a long time that I wonder if the WMF Board would consider a waiver in our case, but so far I think being a user group will be adequate for our needs in the near future. Hi Asaf, thanks for the info. I have previously heard comments from other affiliates about Affcom taking a long time to make decisions, but until now investigating that has been low on my priority stack. 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
Hello Pine, Although we cannot commit to a systematic 14-day response time for all inquiries, I do think that would be reasonable for routine inquiries, depending on the amount of collaboration outside of the legal department. As mentioned, AffCom is independent from the legal department, so I cannot make a commitment for them, but AffCom has made a few recent changes that aim to improve the process for user groups overall. I think that the legal team does respond well within 14 days for the vast majority of inquiries that we receive, and we will reemphasize the importance of this point with our attorneys at our next biweekly legal meeting. The legal team does not publish our quarterly goals because we do not want to show our strategy to adverse parties, such as cases where we litigate to defend WMF or to support the defense of users. That said, our public goals are linked to standard ongoing workflows, much of which you can find in the WMF's FDC proposal ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form/Ongoing_work_areas#Legal ). Best, Stephen On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Nemo, Cascadia Wikimedians' current discussions with Affcom and WMF Legal are about some wording on the Affiliation Agreement document. We have not discussed becoming a chapter in any great detail, and as you note the WMF Board created a longevity requirement. We have had informal meetings in Cascadia for such a long time that I wonder if the WMF Board would consider a waiver in our case, but so far I think being a user group will be adequate for our needs in the near future. Hi Asaf, thanks for the info. I have previously heard comments from other affiliates about Affcom taking a long time to make decisions, but until now investigating that has been low on my priority stack. Pine ___ Affiliations Committee mailing list aff...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom -- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation *NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.* ___ 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
Thank you for that information, Asaf, Kirill, and James. James: my point still stands that somehow at IEGCom we are able to respond substantively to almost 100% if inquiries within 7 days. It seems to me that if we can do this at IEGCom, then asking Legal and Affcom to commit to substantively responding to all inquiries within 14 days is reasonable. There may be an exceptional case from time to time, but explanations for delays and regular updates should still be forthcoming. Users generally shouldn't need to go to Geoff or Wikimedia-l to get progress, nor should there be multiple weeks of silence from Affcom and/or Legal, especially when updates have been requested during that time. I would like to ask that the communication and timeliness issues discussed in this thread be addressed thoroughly, and that the specific actions taken be made transparent. Thank you, Pine On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: That's correct. And for completeness, I am the primary staff liaison to AffCom, with Stephen LaPorte providing support on legal matters. A. On Oct 10, 2014 3:40 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Kirill, my understanding is that Affcom functions under the Legal department, much like the Individual Engagement Grants Committee functions under the Grantmaking department. Is that so, and if not, which department is responsible for Affcom? Hi Pine, That's not the case. AffCom reports directly to the Board of Trustees [1] rather than to any staff department. Kirill [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Affiliations_Committee_Charter ___ Affiliations Committee mailing list aff...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
Hi Pine, I think nobody wants to say that questions should take longer to get answered - we all would like your inquiries to be answered sooner rather than later. To accomplish this, the Committee has made changes in its workflow several times in the past year, to especially make user group applications less time consuming. Previously, decisions on User Groups had to be taken by a formal committee vote, after a period of consensus building. Recently this process has been delegated mostly to the liaisons, who have some liberty to decide on behalf of the Committee. However, I also feel a need to mention that it is unreasonable to compare two such very different committees and expect similar response times because of it. While I am not familiar with how discussions in the IEG-committee go, I can say that the AffCom often has ''in camera'' discussions, which are not visible to the outside world. We're working hard to come to a good *Committee decision* rather than a simple up/down vote of individuals. We need to combine our experiences and skills rather than make a choice all for ourselves. Unfortunately we don't have frequent meetings, so these discussions mostly drag on via email - something to improve. Especially when a new type of application (or an application with a new component) comes in, that requires some discussion among the Committee members - this unfortunately takes time. This combined with the fact that there is little staff support (something being worked on to improve as well) and that the number of members has been low for some time (selections currently ongoing), I can confidently say that the situation can be expected to improve over the coming months even further. Will that solve all problems, and get all response times as we would like to see them? Probably not. But improvement would already be a big win, I'd say. A last, general word of advice: if you don't get a reply to your question a week after your email, feel free to poke again. Please do it genty, but feel free. No need to get agressive, angry or insulted because it takes long. It might well be that your liaison is busy at work, or even that it ended up in their spam filter. A friendly reminder goes a long way. Best regards, Lodewijk (outgoing AffCom member, not speaking on behalf of anyone else) 2014-10-11 10:23 GMT+02:00 Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com: Thank you for that information, Asaf, Kirill, and James. James: my point still stands that somehow at IEGCom we are able to respond substantively to almost 100% if inquiries within 7 days. It seems to me that if we can do this at IEGCom, then asking Legal and Affcom to commit to substantively responding to all inquiries within 14 days is reasonable. There may be an exceptional case from time to time, but explanations for delays and regular updates should still be forthcoming. Users generally shouldn't need to go to Geoff or Wikimedia-l to get progress, nor should there be multiple weeks of silence from Affcom and/or Legal, especially when updates have been requested during that time. I would like to ask that the communication and timeliness issues discussed in this thread be addressed thoroughly, and that the specific actions taken be made transparent. Thank you, Pine On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: That's correct. And for completeness, I am the primary staff liaison to AffCom, with Stephen LaPorte providing support on legal matters. A. On Oct 10, 2014 3:40 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Kirill, my understanding is that Affcom functions under the Legal department, much like the Individual Engagement Grants Committee functions under the Grantmaking department. Is that so, and if not, which department is responsible for Affcom? Hi Pine, That's not the case. AffCom reports directly to the Board of Trustees [1] rather than to any staff department. Kirill [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Affiliations_Committee_Charter ___ Affiliations Committee mailing list aff...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Affiliations Committee mailing list aff...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
Hi Lodewijk, Let me make a few points: 1. I appreciate that Affcom is working to make its outputs more timely, especially for user group decisions. 2. I hear you say that you are under-resourced with volunteers and staff support. I appreciate that serving on Affcom is probably one of the more thankless jobs in the Wikimedia movement, and I understand that there is a Wikimedia-wide shortage of volunteers, particularly volunteers who do their jobs skillfully, who avoid conflicts of interest, and who volunteer in less visible roles in order to keep the Wikimedia movement functioning. 3. I don't hear of a need for more staff support for Affcom from the most recent Grantmaking quarterly review [1], so I am not sure if and when this is going to happen. This may be a point that Asaf can address. 4. We in Cascadia Wikimedians (and I imagine other thematic organizations) have our own timelines that we need to deal with, and needing to wait indefinitely for Affcom and Legal to make decisions makes planning difficult on our end. Also, we are losing organizational momentum while we wait. Momentum is important for the creation of organizations, and possibly for their survival. It would be a disappointment to have groups such as ours lose volunteer interest and partnership opportunities because of delays such as those that we are experiencing. 5. Prior to this discussion on Wikimedia-l, I sent emails to the liaisons and/or Affcom and/or Legal that went unanswered. Regarding our most recent subjects of discussion, we did not even hear a simple we'll get back to you by early next week until taking this matter to Wikimedia-l and Geoff. In the meantime during the past few weeks, I have received multiple communications from Cascadians asking what is happening, and I can only tell them that we are still waiting for Affcom and WMF Legal. 6. From my perspective as a client of Affcom, I continue to believe that a 14-day timeline is reasonable for most decisions or for further substantive questions to be asked. There may need to be process tweaks in order to make that happen, for example Affcom members may be given fixed deadlines by which to vote in consensus processes. Perhaps this is a discussion that Affcom should have with Asaf once it has onboarded new members with fresh energy and ideas, and perhaps Affcom could ask Anna Stillwell for ideas as well. There are trade-offs to be made between the comprehensiveness of internal discussions and timely outcomes for those discussions, and from recent experience I would say that more weight should be given to the value of timely outcomes, in addition to more transparency and frequent communication. 7. I appreciate that you are giving attention to this matter and that Affcom is making efforts to improve the situation that will achieve benefits over the next few months. I hope that Affcom will provide updates to the community and affiliates. Thank you, Pine [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF _Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking /September_2014 On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi Pine, I think nobody wants to say that questions should take longer to get answered - we all would like your inquiries to be answered sooner rather than later. To accomplish this, the Committee has made changes in its workflow several times in the past year, to especially make user group applications less time consuming. Previously, decisions on User Groups had to be taken by a formal committee vote, after a period of consensus building. Recently this process has been delegated mostly to the liaisons, who have some liberty to decide on behalf of the Committee. However, I also feel a need to mention that it is unreasonable to compare two such very different committees and expect similar response times because of it. While I am not familiar with how discussions in the IEG-committee go, I can say that the AffCom often has ''in camera'' discussions, which are not visible to the outside world. We're working hard to come to a good *Committee decision* rather than a simple up/down vote of individuals. We need to combine our experiences and skills rather than make a choice all for ourselves. Unfortunately we don't have frequent meetings, so these discussions mostly drag on via email - something to improve. Especially when a new type of application (or an application with a new component) comes in, that requires some discussion among the Committee members - this unfortunately takes time. This combined with the fact that there is little staff support (something being worked on to improve as well) and that the number of members has been low for some time (selections currently ongoing), I can confidently say that the situation can be expected to improve over the coming months even further. Will that solve all problems, and get all response times as we would like to see them? Probably not. But
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
Hi Pine, We are actively following the case of Cascadia Wikimedians to see whether we can facilitate the signing of the user group agreement between the user group and WMFLegal (the group's recognition has been approved by AffCom in September -- apologies in any delays you have experienced up to that point). Also, thank you for your helpful suggestions in general. Without repeating Lodewijk's letter, I feel it important to point out that despite a few hiccups, and a higher than usual turnover in volunteers, AffCom has been very active this year in seeking and responding to feedback, communicating and improving our processes (including the launch of the liaison programme, a Twitter feed, simplified user group recognition). There are still ways to go, and the changing processes, services and expectations do bring new challenges, andoccassional mistakes as we have to relearn the way we do things, and adjust to an increasing/changing workload. Please do e-mail the AffCom list directly to ask for an update, or to ping us with regard to your specific application. The high reply time you experience is an outlier, and there might be an easily to solve misunderstanding that could be cleared up through the regular channels. Best regards, Bence (personal view) On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Lodewijk, Let me make a few points: 1. I appreciate that Affcom is working to make its outputs more timely, especially for user group decisions. 2. I hear you say that you are under-resourced with volunteers and staff support. I appreciate that serving on Affcom is probably one of the more thankless jobs in the Wikimedia movement, and I understand that there is a Wikimedia-wide shortage of volunteers, particularly volunteers who do their jobs skillfully, who avoid conflicts of interest, and who volunteer in less visible roles in order to keep the Wikimedia movement functioning. 3. I don't hear of a need for more staff support for Affcom from the most recent Grantmaking quarterly review [1], so I am not sure if and when this is going to happen. This may be a point that Asaf can address. 4. We in Cascadia Wikimedians (and I imagine other thematic organizations) have our own timelines that we need to deal with, and needing to wait indefinitely for Affcom and Legal to make decisions makes planning difficult on our end. Also, we are losing organizational momentum while we wait. Momentum is important for the creation of organizations, and possibly for their survival. It would be a disappointment to have groups such as ours lose volunteer interest and partnership opportunities because of delays such as those that we are experiencing. 5. Prior to this discussion on Wikimedia-l, I sent emails to the liaisons and/or Affcom and/or Legal that went unanswered. Regarding our most recent subjects of discussion, we did not even hear a simple we'll get back to you by early next week until taking this matter to Wikimedia-l and Geoff. In the meantime during the past few weeks, I have received multiple communications from Cascadians asking what is happening, and I can only tell them that we are still waiting for Affcom and WMF Legal. 6. From my perspective as a client of Affcom, I continue to believe that a 14-day timeline is reasonable for most decisions or for further substantive questions to be asked. There may need to be process tweaks in order to make that happen, for example Affcom members may be given fixed deadlines by which to vote in consensus processes. Perhaps this is a discussion that Affcom should have with Asaf once it has onboarded new members with fresh energy and ideas, and perhaps Affcom could ask Anna Stillwell for ideas as well. There are trade-offs to be made between the comprehensiveness of internal discussions and timely outcomes for those discussions, and from recent experience I would say that more weight should be given to the value of timely outcomes, in addition to more transparency and frequent communication. 7. I appreciate that you are giving attention to this matter and that Affcom is making efforts to improve the situation that will achieve benefits over the next few months. I hope that Affcom will provide updates to the community and affiliates. Thank you, Pine [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF _Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking /September_2014 On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi Pine, I think nobody wants to say that questions should take longer to get answered - we all would like your inquiries to be answered sooner rather than later. To accomplish this, the Committee has made changes in its workflow several times in the past year, to especially make user group applications less time consuming. Previously, decisions on User Groups had to be taken by a formal committee vote, after a period of consensus building.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
Pine W, 11/10/2014 22:05: 4. We in Cascadia Wikimedians (and I imagine other thematic organizations) have our own timelines that we need to deal with, and needing to wait indefinitely for Affcom and Legal to make decisions [...] a) Be aware it's impossible to understant what you're talking about. [[Cascadian Wikimedians]] states you are already a user group and I see a row in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_in_discussion_phase , so I guess you're talking of recognition as a chapter. However, given that you don't seem to be keeping your row in this table up to date, I'm having difficulties understand. makes planning difficult on our end. Also, we are losing organizational momentum while we wait. Momentum is important for the creation of organizations, and possibly for their survival. It would be a disappointment to have groups such as ours lose volunteer interest and partnership opportunities because of delays such as those that we are experiencing. b) All very true. however, assuming guess (a) is correct, let me remind the WMF board has established that becoming a chapter must now be at very least a 2 years marathon. I suggest that you don't hold your breath and keep plenty of water reserves, otherwise rather than exhaustion you'll risk collapses and heart attacks. Nemo ___ 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: 3. I don't hear of a need for more staff support for Affcom from the most recent Grantmaking quarterly review [1], so I am not sure if and when this is going to happen. This may be a point that Asaf can address. The idea of providing some staff support for the committee's work has been discussed with AffCom, but with no conclusion so far. It is therefore too soon for WMF to announce or allocate any such resources. However, it does not seem to me that staff support would address the primary difficulty for the committee to respond in a more timely manner. That would have to do with the generally low participation by most of its members, an issue to be addressed by the committee itself (or the board), and to be partly ameliorated, no doubt, by the upcoming addition of new members. As you noted, the AffCom work is pretty thankless, and very few community members take an interest in the committee's work, even from the outside, and this is to its detriment. Even you, as a volunteer with exceptionally broad interests in governance and movement topics, only took an active interest when your own group needed AffCom's approval. A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Kirill, my understanding is that Affcom functions under the Legal department, much like the Individual Engagement Grants Committee functions under the Grantmaking department. Is that so, and if not, which department is responsible for Affcom? Hi Pine, That's not the case. AffCom reports directly to the Board of Trustees [1] rather than to any staff department. Kirill [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Affiliations_Committee_Charter ___ 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [AffCom] Quarterly goals for WMF Legal
That's correct. And for completeness, I am the primary staff liaison to AffCom, with Stephen LaPorte providing support on legal matters. A. On Oct 10, 2014 3:40 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Kirill, my understanding is that Affcom functions under the Legal department, much like the Individual Engagement Grants Committee functions under the Grantmaking department. Is that so, and if not, which department is responsible for Affcom? Hi Pine, That's not the case. AffCom reports directly to the Board of Trustees [1] rather than to any staff department. Kirill [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Affiliations_Committee_Charter ___ Affiliations Committee mailing list aff...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom ___ 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
