Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia, Community User Group Albania

[Sidorela Uku]

Greta hi again,

We agree that the discussion is not productive, but we did not initiate 
it. On the other hand, we invite everyone involved in this issue to 
remember the reasons we got involved in what we do in the first place. 
In our case we want to promote open knowledge in the way we think it is 
productive and in the best capacity that we have.


Again, in the case of our two user groups it is clear that the situation 
for SQ Wikipedia has clearly improved (more interaction with 
institutions, more events and activities) and this is what we all should 
keep out of this.


Last but not least, it seems that you have a strong belief that we do 
not want to collaborate with your UG. We would like to clearly state 
that we are open to collaborations not only with WoALUG, but with any 
other entity that shares the same goal and values with our user group. 
We also have planned to officially contact your UG in the next weeks and 
have a productive meeting on how to avoid any issues in the future and 
why not, collaborate in fields that are considered of common interest. 
We hope you answer positively and we find common ground.


Best regards,
Sidorela
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Greta Doçi]

e
> our work and the final 'product' better.
>
>
> *2. overlapping of activities*
> There are at least 37 museums listed at the moment in SQ Wikipedia, and
> hundreds of schools in 36 cities in Albania counting thousands of students
> and hundreds of teachers. Even if Albania is a small country, there is so
> much work to be done and any help and engagement of any level is more than
> welcome. If we all have good intentions and if all active User Groups in
> the area are positive towards each other it is actually quite easy to avoid
> overlapping and develop SQ Wikipedia from (only) 75000 articles to hundreds
> of thousands of more articles. In a few words, there is space for
> activities from many user groups and even more projects to implement in two
> areas that we are working on GLAM and Wiki in Education.
> Up until today here is what we as a user group have done in order to avoid
> any conflict that would generate overlapping:
> *- planning activities ahead *
> All our activities are planned ahead in our monthly meetings and are
> published accordingly. Any Wikipedian in the area can check the notes and
> see where is our focus in the next months and avoid overlapping.
> *- transparency *
> documenting note meetings in meta pages where everyone can clearly see what
> we are planning ahead and what we have done so far. Again if any UG or
> concerned wikimedian is interested in not having overlapping activities a
> simple check would do the work.
>
> *3. potential conflict between two UGs*
> During our monthly UG meetings we have agreed that we will work on avoiding
> conflicts which will create an unpleasant situation for the Wikimdia
> Movement in Albania. An example that shows our efforts on avoiding
> conflicts is the fact that although members of our user group have worked
> previously for the organization of Wiki Loves Monuments competition, we
> asked members of the the other user group (WoALUG) if we can host it. In
> their answer they informed us  that they wanted to organize it and after
> the response we stepped down. Another example is Open Source Conference
> Albania, the yearly conference where we wanted to be present with our User
> Group with an info booth, but since the other user group applied for the
> booth we again stepped down in order to avoid any unpleasant discussions
> and avoid confusion to the public. We could also add the fact that
> activities from our user group are actually less promoted by the SQ
> Wikipedia twitter account, but again we have not initiated any discussion
> that could be a potential conflict between user groups.
>
> *4. respecting policies from AffCom*
> Before applying we checked carefully the AffCom policy for naming of the
> user group, logo, CoC and of course other policies defined by AffCom. Our
> application was prepared with total respect to these policies which we
> followed and still do.
>
> Last but not least, we would like to stress out the fact that after almost
> a year of being active, in our knowledge there have NOT been any concerns
> officially addressed to us from any user group. Even if this happens we
> would be more than willing to either not get involved in the same projects
> and do our best to facilitate the process of finding a solution. Sincerely,
> we started our user group as a way of contributing to the growth of
> Wikimedia Movement in Albania, a place where we also live and contribute at
> social level, with people that we respect and work collectively in a
> productive way. We are willing to spend a lot of volunteer time to move the
> movement forward in collaboration with public institutions that are willing
> to empower the commons in the Republic of Albania.  While doing so we are
> also open to any UG that want to collaborate in the thematic areas and
> country we operate based on our UG description.
> The open source and open knowledge movement has proved since day one that
> remixing, forking, sharing resources and improving upon each others work
> generates progress for all of us, which is basically true if you see that
> there is quite some growth in terms of activities (from both UGs mentioned
> here) in SQ Wikipedia since our group got recognition. Again there are so
> many projects that can be implemented and there is space for as many people
> as possible!
>
> Representing Wikimedia Community User Group Albania
> Silva Arapi.
>
>
>
> > From: Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin 
> >
> Date: Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia
> Community
> > User Group Albania
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> >
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > Cooperation with external entities is best

[Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Silva Arapi]

 in meta pages where everyone can clearly see what
we are planning ahead and what we have done so far. Again if any UG or
concerned wikimedian is interested in not having overlapping activities a
simple check would do the work.

*3. potential conflict between two UGs*
During our monthly UG meetings we have agreed that we will work on avoiding
conflicts which will create an unpleasant situation for the Wikimdia
Movement in Albania. An example that shows our efforts on avoiding
conflicts is the fact that although members of our user group have worked
previously for the organization of Wiki Loves Monuments competition, we
asked members of the the other user group (WoALUG) if we can host it. In
their answer they informed us  that they wanted to organize it and after
the response we stepped down. Another example is Open Source Conference
Albania, the yearly conference where we wanted to be present with our User
Group with an info booth, but since the other user group applied for the
booth we again stepped down in order to avoid any unpleasant discussions
and avoid confusion to the public. We could also add the fact that
activities from our user group are actually less promoted by the SQ
Wikipedia twitter account, but again we have not initiated any discussion
that could be a potential conflict between user groups.

*4. respecting policies from AffCom*
Before applying we checked carefully the AffCom policy for naming of the
user group, logo, CoC and of course other policies defined by AffCom. Our
application was prepared with total respect to these policies which we
followed and still do.

Last but not least, we would like to stress out the fact that after almost
a year of being active, in our knowledge there have NOT been any concerns
officially addressed to us from any user group. Even if this happens we
would be more than willing to either not get involved in the same projects
and do our best to facilitate the process of finding a solution. Sincerely,
we started our user group as a way of contributing to the growth of
Wikimedia Movement in Albania, a place where we also live and contribute at
social level, with people that we respect and work collectively in a
productive way. We are willing to spend a lot of volunteer time to move the
movement forward in collaboration with public institutions that are willing
to empower the commons in the Republic of Albania.  While doing so we are
also open to any UG that want to collaborate in the thematic areas and
country we operate based on our UG description.
The open source and open knowledge movement has proved since day one that
remixing, forking, sharing resources and improving upon each others work
generates progress for all of us, which is basically true if you see that
there is quite some growth in terms of activities (from both UGs mentioned
here) in SQ Wikipedia since our group got recognition. Again there are so
many projects that can be implemented and there is space for as many people
as possible!

Representing Wikimedia Community User Group Albania
Silva Arapi.



> From: Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin 
>
Date: Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community
> User Group Albania
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Cooperation with external entities is best organized through either
> national chapters or thematic organizations, which should be predominantly
> self-supporting, thus quasi-independent from WMF.  I support Kiril's advice
> that WoALUG should be evolving towards a Wikimedia thematic organization,
> whilst our WCUGA colleagues in Albania should consider evolving towards a
> national chapter (thus stepping out of WoALUG's way in anything that has to
> do with ethnic language and culture matters).
>
> At the same time, emails below don't seem to provide good enough reasons
> to force transformation of a recognized UG into a national chapter or
> thematic organization before they are ready to make that leap, even if
> having these structures is very important for the ongoing sustainability of
> the movement. I am happy to see that our Thai colleagues seem to have
> reached this stage
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_in_discussion_phase
>
> UGs are a wonderful tool for greater engagement of volunteers, supporting
> their desire to take greater steps, so the trend for approving new UGs is
> probably there for good (every city, sub-region or sub-topic being
> eligible). Keeping the door open is important, just like the chance to fail
> and get de-recognized. May I remind you that harmony within the community
> of Wikimedia volunteers is more important than the destiny of whatever
> Wikimedia affiliate, whose main function is a shell that brings together
> and gives some recognized identity to local volunteers' that run own
> projects.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin]

Dear colleagues,

Cooperation with external entities is best organized through either national 
chapters or thematic organizations, which should be predominantly 
self-supporting, thus quasi-independent from WMF.  I support Kiril's advice 
that WoALUG should be evolving towards a Wikimedia thematic organization, 
whilst our WCUGA colleagues in Albania should consider evolving towards a 
national chapter (thus stepping out of WoALUG's way in anything that has to do 
with ethnic language and culture matters). 

At the same time, emails below don't seem to provide good enough reasons to 
force transformation of a recognized UG into a national chapter or thematic 
organization before they are ready to make that leap, even if having these 
structures is very important for the ongoing sustainability of the movement. I 
am happy to see that our Thai colleagues seem to have reached this stage 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_in_discussion_phase 

UGs are a wonderful tool for greater engagement of volunteers, supporting their 
desire to take greater steps, so the trend for approving new UGs is probably 
there for good (every city, sub-region or sub-topic being eligible). Keeping 
the door open is important, just like the chance to fail and get de-recognized. 
May I remind you that harmony within the community of Wikimedia volunteers is 
more important than the destiny of whatever Wikimedia affiliate, whose main 
function is a shell that brings together and gives some recognized identity to 
local volunteers' that run own projects. 

regards,
farhad

-- 
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / 
skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan


25.02.2019, 17:09, "Kiril Simeonovski" :
> Hi Greta,
>
> Thank you for the explanation.
>
> This reminds me a lot to what happened in Macedonia, albeit with different
> names of the recognised user groups. The artificially created problem by
> the Aff Com has eventually ended up in two user groups being eligible for
> WMF grants (another contentious decision), then a raising concern that the
> WMF can not extend funds to two user groups in a small country serving
> community with a small number of speakers and finally a substantial
> reduction of the annual grants approved for 2019 and threat that no grants
> will be extended for 2020 if the conflict does not get resolved. My kind
> advice for you is to start thinking about external funding for the next
> budget year (though it is not an easy task in our region) because this is
> something that the WMF might do for Albania as well.
>
> I also strongly agree with Paulo that we need to start thinking about
> preventing this from happening in the future. The problem is not only that
> people do not care about the consequences from their decisions in a
> volunteer community but that they just bagger off after complicating things
> and simply leave the issue to be solved by the volunteers who did not want
> it to happen. I was thinking about introducing a complaint process on Meta
> where people from the communities can directly complain about similar
> instances of problems created by the WMF, the Aff Com, the grantmaking
> committees or any other decision-making party. Frankly speaking, my
> impression is that the movement migrates from decisions about big things
> made through community-based discussions to a centralised decision-making
> process made entirely within the WMF or the committees that do not seem to
> serve all communities equally.
>
> Best,
> Kiril
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:17 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Greta,
>>
>>  Thank you very much for your clarifications and insight into this question.
>>
>>  This is very similar with what happened in Brazil, when the 2013
>>  chapter-like UG (Grupo de Usuários Wikimedia no Brasil) and its clone UG
>>  (Wiki Educação Brasil) approved by AffCom in 2015 ended up competing for
>>  the same activities and partnerships.
>>
>>  Hopefully this time AffCom will not have the reckless approach they had
>>  with Brazil, extinguishing both groups to try to solve a problem they
>>  created themselves, and our wikimedian friends from Albania and Albanian
>>  Language will be spared the destruction of their community.
>>
>>  I believe that we, as the broad community, really should do something to
>>  prevent this kind of thing which is mining and destroying parts of the
>>  Wikimedia Movement. It is not possible that we have to stay here quietly
>>  seeing AffCom dealing with all those cases in such an incompetent and
>>  reckless way. If it's obviously not working, why keep it that way?
>>
>>  Best,
>>  Paulo
>>
>>  Greta Doçi  escreveu no dia segunda, 25/02/2019 à(s)
>>  12:34:
>>
>>  > Dear everyone,
>>  >
>>  > First, we want to thank everyone who contributed in this discussion.
>>  >
>>  > We want to start with the first conflict, which is the name. If you read
>>  > carefully Affcon's 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Kiril Simeonovski]

Hi Greta,

Thank you for the explanation.

This reminds me a lot to what happened in Macedonia, albeit with different
names of the recognised user groups. The artificially created problem by
the Aff Com has eventually ended up in two user groups being eligible for
WMF grants (another contentious decision), then a raising concern that the
WMF can not extend funds to two user groups in a small country serving
community with a small number of speakers and finally a substantial
reduction of the annual grants approved for 2019 and threat that no grants
will be extended for 2020 if the conflict does not get resolved. My kind
advice for you is to start thinking about external funding for the next
budget year (though it is not an easy task in our region) because this is
something that the WMF might do for Albania as well.

I also strongly agree with Paulo that we need to start thinking about
preventing this from happening in the future. The problem is not only that
people do not care about the consequences from their decisions in a
volunteer community but that they just bagger off after complicating things
and simply leave the issue to be solved by the volunteers who did not want
it to happen. I was thinking about introducing a complaint process on Meta
where people from the communities can directly complain about similar
instances of problems created by the WMF, the Aff Com, the grantmaking
committees or any other decision-making party. Frankly speaking, my
impression is that the movement migrates from decisions about big things
made through community-based discussions to a centralised decision-making
process made entirely within the WMF or the committees that do not seem to
serve all communities equally.

Best,
Kiril

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:17 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Greta,
>
> Thank you very much for your clarifications and insight into this question.
>
> This is very similar with what happened in Brazil, when the 2013
> chapter-like UG (Grupo de Usuários Wikimedia no Brasil) and its clone UG
> (Wiki Educação Brasil) approved by AffCom in 2015 ended up competing for
> the same activities and partnerships.
>
> Hopefully this time AffCom will not have the reckless approach they had
> with Brazil, extinguishing both groups to try to solve a problem they
> created themselves, and our wikimedian friends from Albania and Albanian
> Language will be spared the destruction of their community.
>
> I believe that we, as the broad community, really should do something to
> prevent this kind of thing which is mining and destroying parts of the
> Wikimedia Movement. It is not possible that we have to stay here quietly
> seeing AffCom dealing with all those cases in such an incompetent and
> reckless way. If it's obviously not working, why keep it that way?
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Greta Doçi  escreveu no dia segunda, 25/02/2019 à(s)
> 12:34:
>
> > Dear everyone,
> >
> > First, we want to thank everyone who contributed in this discussion.
> >
> > We want to start with the first conflict, which is the name. If you read
> > carefully Affcon's email above, and you check the info online as claimed
> by
> > Affcon, you will see that actually Affcon itself has confused both UG
> > names, crediting events to the other UG, that actually are done by our
> UG (
> > WoALUG
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group
> > >)
> > and vice versa.
> >
> > After the new UG was recognized and people started raising questions in
> > this thread, we received an email by Affcon to explain to them what we
> > thought was the overlapping. We did send our activities and explained why
> > we thought there was overlapping. Reading Camelias and Sami email above,
> > clearly that email was ignored.
> >
> > Exactly during the time that the new UG was applying, the old one
> (WoALUG)
> > was applying for the annual simple grant, which btw took us at least 4
> > months to complete, all our activities in Albania were clearly stated,
> and
> > GLAM and EDUCATION were our main goals. There are also institutions
> > mentioned and details of what we wanted to do in Albania. So, claiming
> that
> > theres no overlapping of activities is not valid.
> >
> > WoALUG goes beyond Albania or Kosovo, because some Albanian contributors
> > who don't live in Albania created it at the first place, so we wish we
> can
> > help Albanian speakers in diaspora to continue to contribute, and if they
> > need information, sources or whatever, our team present in Albania,
> Kosova,
> > Macedonia, or Arberesh in Italy, will use our resources to make that
> > happen. Our UG means to be inclusive of what is a small Wikimedia
> language
> > community anyways.
> >
> > GLAM and Education institutions are depended on public institutions. To
> > collaborate with an institution, let's say Historic Museum of Albania,
> you
> > need to get permission from the Ministry of Culture. Think about the
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hi Greta,

Thank you very much for your clarifications and insight into this question.

This is very similar with what happened in Brazil, when the 2013
chapter-like UG (Grupo de Usuários Wikimedia no Brasil) and its clone UG
(Wiki Educação Brasil) approved by AffCom in 2015 ended up competing for
the same activities and partnerships.

Hopefully this time AffCom will not have the reckless approach they had
with Brazil, extinguishing both groups to try to solve a problem they
created themselves, and our wikimedian friends from Albania and Albanian
Language will be spared the destruction of their community.

I believe that we, as the broad community, really should do something to
prevent this kind of thing which is mining and destroying parts of the
Wikimedia Movement. It is not possible that we have to stay here quietly
seeing AffCom dealing with all those cases in such an incompetent and
reckless way. If it's obviously not working, why keep it that way?

Best,
Paulo

Greta Doçi  escreveu no dia segunda, 25/02/2019 à(s)
12:34:

> Dear everyone,
>
> First, we want to thank everyone who contributed in this discussion.
>
> We want to start with the first conflict, which is the name. If you read
> carefully Affcon's email above, and you check the info online as claimed by
> Affcon, you will see that actually Affcon itself has confused both UG
> names, crediting events to the other UG, that actually are done by our UG (
> WoALUG
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group
> >)
> and vice versa.
>
> After the new UG was recognized and people started raising questions in
> this thread, we received an email by Affcon to explain to them what we
> thought was the overlapping. We did send our activities and explained why
> we thought there was overlapping. Reading Camelias and Sami email above,
> clearly that email was ignored.
>
> Exactly during the time that the new UG was applying, the old one (WoALUG)
> was applying for the annual simple grant, which btw took us at least 4
> months to complete, all our activities in Albania were clearly stated, and
> GLAM and EDUCATION were our main goals. There are also institutions
> mentioned and details of what we wanted to do in Albania. So, claiming that
> theres no overlapping of activities is not valid.
>
> WoALUG goes beyond Albania or Kosovo, because some Albanian contributors
> who don't live in Albania created it at the first place, so we wish we can
> help Albanian speakers in diaspora to continue to contribute, and if they
> need information, sources or whatever, our team present in Albania, Kosova,
> Macedonia, or Arberesh in Italy, will use our resources to make that
> happen. Our UG means to be inclusive of what is a small Wikimedia language
> community anyways.
>
> GLAM and Education institutions are depended on public institutions. To
> collaborate with an institution, let's say Historic Museum of Albania, you
> need to get permission from the Ministry of Culture. Think about the
> scenario (which is currently happening): one UG requests to collaborate
> with Museum of Elbasan and the other UG want to collaborate with Museum of
> Tirana, both should sent the request to Ministry of Culture. Wikipedia is a
> new thing (still) in Albania, considering that is already hard to establish
> collaborations with public institutions, confusing the UGs will result in
> bad outcome for both UGs.
>
> And of course, for the other private institutions, it is a competition who
> is going to contact them first.
>
> Splitting institutions is also not an option because for sure we will aim
> the same ones, since there's not that many of them.
>
> We were confused, we still are and none of our members have the time to
> follow this even after a year.
>
> on behalf of Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group
> >
> .
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:30 PM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
> f...@yandex.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Kiril and Paulo,
> > Thank you for explanations.
> >
> > You have my deepest respect for showing your concern for our fellow
> > colleagues from Albania, so they avoid repeating the mistakes that have
> > been made previously elsewhere. Just like you, I certainly hope that our
> > volunteer-colleagues serving in AffCom did their best to assess and
> > minimize possible risks that might come in case of competition. As for
> > Albanian language & Albania centered multilingual UGs, let's hope they
> are
> > getting along well and work hand in hand on the aspects in which they can
> > help advancing each other's missions.
> >
> > Our current situation is actually encouraging us to consider developing
> > Russian-speaking UGs in all regions of Russia, and my home Republic might
> > be one of the first ones where this will be useful. Our chapter consist
> of
> > representatives of various Wikimedia projects, languages & ethnic groups,
> > but our 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Greta Doçi]

Dear everyone,

First, we want to thank everyone who contributed in this discussion.

We want to start with the first conflict, which is the name. If you read
carefully Affcon's email above, and you check the info online as claimed by
Affcon, you will see that actually Affcon itself has confused both UG
names, crediting events to the other UG, that actually are done by our UG (
WoALUG
)
and vice versa.

After the new UG was recognized and people started raising questions in
this thread, we received an email by Affcon to explain to them what we
thought was the overlapping. We did send our activities and explained why
we thought there was overlapping. Reading Camelias and Sami email above,
clearly that email was ignored.

Exactly during the time that the new UG was applying, the old one (WoALUG)
was applying for the annual simple grant, which btw took us at least 4
months to complete, all our activities in Albania were clearly stated, and
GLAM and EDUCATION were our main goals. There are also institutions
mentioned and details of what we wanted to do in Albania. So, claiming that
theres no overlapping of activities is not valid.

WoALUG goes beyond Albania or Kosovo, because some Albanian contributors
who don't live in Albania created it at the first place, so we wish we can
help Albanian speakers in diaspora to continue to contribute, and if they
need information, sources or whatever, our team present in Albania, Kosova,
Macedonia, or Arberesh in Italy, will use our resources to make that
happen. Our UG means to be inclusive of what is a small Wikimedia language
community anyways.

GLAM and Education institutions are depended on public institutions. To
collaborate with an institution, let's say Historic Museum of Albania, you
need to get permission from the Ministry of Culture. Think about the
scenario (which is currently happening): one UG requests to collaborate
with Museum of Elbasan and the other UG want to collaborate with Museum of
Tirana, both should sent the request to Ministry of Culture. Wikipedia is a
new thing (still) in Albania, considering that is already hard to establish
collaborations with public institutions, confusing the UGs will result in
bad outcome for both UGs.

And of course, for the other private institutions, it is a competition who
is going to contact them first.

Splitting institutions is also not an option because for sure we will aim
the same ones, since there's not that many of them.

We were confused, we still are and none of our members have the time to
follow this even after a year.

on behalf of Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group

.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:30 PM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
f...@yandex.com> wrote:

> Dear Kiril and Paulo,
> Thank you for explanations.
>
> You have my deepest respect for showing your concern for our fellow
> colleagues from Albania, so they avoid repeating the mistakes that have
> been made previously elsewhere. Just like you, I certainly hope that our
> volunteer-colleagues serving in AffCom did their best to assess and
> minimize possible risks that might come in case of competition. As for
> Albanian language & Albania centered multilingual UGs, let's hope they are
> getting along well and work hand in hand on the aspects in which they can
> help advancing each other's missions.
>
> Our current situation is actually encouraging us to consider developing
> Russian-speaking UGs in all regions of Russia, and my home Republic might
> be one of the first ones where this will be useful. Our chapter consist of
> representatives of various Wikimedia projects, languages & ethnic groups,
> but our weakness is rather low regional representation and empowerment,
> which we hope to balance through UGs. The world is in constant flux, so
> eventually we might also witness similar competition for attention that you
> are talking about. We currently don't seem to have reasons for conflict
> between Wikimedia Russia chapter and Russian & other language or
> territorial UGs because:
> * UGs have representatives in the national chapter
> * National chapter meetings are broadcast live on YouTube,
> * Chapter leadership prioritizes country-wide tasks of importance for
> growing the movement,
> * Wikimedia projects in Russian and other languages are not that famous
> yet,
> * neither affiliates, nor individuals in Russia get their grant requests
> approved by WMF (there are reasons for that), and
> * Russian language is teaching us to be anarchic inside (affiliate
> structures are nothing more than just legal tools), whilst locals have
> centuries-old history of living together in Hunnic Empire, Cumania,
> Mongolic Empire, Golden Horde, Russian Empire, Soviet Union & now Russian
> Federation (something we remember despite the fact that Golden Horde and
> earlier ones don't get much 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin]

Dear Kiril and Paulo,
Thank you for explanations.

You have my deepest respect for showing your concern for our fellow colleagues 
from Albania, so they avoid repeating the mistakes that have been made 
previously elsewhere. Just like you, I certainly hope that our 
volunteer-colleagues serving in AffCom did their best to assess and minimize 
possible risks that might come in case of competition. As for Albanian language 
& Albania centered multilingual UGs, let's hope they are getting along well and 
work hand in hand on the aspects in which they can help advancing each other's 
missions. 

Our current situation is actually encouraging us to consider developing 
Russian-speaking UGs in all regions of Russia, and my home Republic might be 
one of the first ones where this will be useful. Our chapter consist of 
representatives of various Wikimedia projects, languages & ethnic groups, but 
our weakness is rather low regional representation and empowerment, which we 
hope to balance through UGs. The world is in constant flux, so eventually we 
might also witness similar competition for attention that you are talking 
about. We currently don't seem to have reasons for conflict between Wikimedia 
Russia chapter and Russian & other language or territorial UGs because: 
* UGs have representatives in the national chapter
* National chapter meetings are broadcast live on YouTube, 
* Chapter leadership prioritizes country-wide tasks of importance for growing 
the movement, 
* Wikimedia projects in Russian and other languages are not that famous yet,  
* neither affiliates, nor individuals in Russia get their grant requests 
approved by WMF (there are reasons for that), and
* Russian language is teaching us to be anarchic inside (affiliate structures 
are nothing more than just legal tools), whilst locals have centuries-old 
history of living together in Hunnic Empire, Cumania, Mongolic Empire, Golden 
Horde, Russian Empire, Soviet Union & now Russian Federation (something we 
remember despite the fact that Golden Horde and earlier ones don't get much 
coverage in high-school history courses).

regards,
farhad

-- 
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / 
skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan


15.02.2019, 17:37, "Paulo Santos Perneta" :
> Hi Farhad,
>
> It is very easily understood by the so called Brazilian scenario:
>
> Step 1 - AffCom recognizes a chapter style UG, with geographic focus
> Step 2 - Dissidents from first group start warring first UG while
> attempting to form a second UG, clone of the first UG
> Step 3 - AffCom recognizes second UG
> Step 4 - Conflict between UGs dramatically increases with time, spreading
> into the Wikimedia projects
> Step 5 - AffCom dissolves both UGs
>
> Current status: No recognized Wikimedia community in the country
>
> My opinion: Terrible disservice by AffCom to the Wikimedia Movement.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin  escreveu no dia
> sexta, 15/02/2019 à(s) 10:59:
>
>>  Dear Kiril, Philip and colleagues,
>>
>>  Please explain the nature of reasons that cause trouble in having multiple
>>  Wikimedia affiliates in the area, as this seems to be context specific.
>>  It's possible that our context in Russia is very different, which is why
>>  we are actually welcoming creation of new UGs throughout the country, both
>>  territorially and thematically oriented ones (on top of the Wikimedia
>>  Russia national chapter).
>>  Should you give more reasons why this seems causing conflict, I might.
>>
>>  Over here we are quite happy with existing collaboration at all levels and
>>  are even looking forward to developing a mechanism to speed up their
>>  formation throughout the country - namely
>>  
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Languages_of_Russia_Community_User_Group
>>  Myself and other representatives of Wikimedia Russia discussed this in
>>  detail and welcomed by AffCom secretary during Wikimania 2017
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Frhdkazan/Wikimania2017#Aug.12 And
>>  in the framework of https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
>>  initiative, I will eventually proceed to registering a Tatarstan-oriented
>>  thematic multilingual UG, on top of recently registered
>>  
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group
>>  & Wikimedia Russia, in both of which I am currently a member.
>>
>>  regards,
>>  farhad
>>
>>  --
>>  Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
>>  skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>>
>>  14.02.2019, 03:25, "Kiril Simeonovski" :
>>  > Hi Paulo,
>>  >
>>  > Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is exactly
>>  the
>>  > opposite of what the Affiliations Committee is doing in practice. The
>>  > so-called 'Brazilian scenario' emerged in Macedonia when, in 2016, the
>>  > committee decided to recognise a second user group on the same territory
>>  > without consulting the existing 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hi Farhad,

It is very easily understood by the so called Brazilian scenario:

Step 1 - AffCom recognizes a chapter style UG, with geographic focus
Step 2 - Dissidents from first group start warring first UG while
attempting to form a second UG, clone of the first UG
Step 3 - AffCom recognizes second UG
Step 4 - Conflict between UGs dramatically increases with time, spreading
into the Wikimedia projects
Step 5 - AffCom dissolves both UGs

Current status: No recognized Wikimedia community in the country

My opinion: Terrible disservice by AffCom to the Wikimedia Movement.

Best,
Paulo

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin  escreveu no dia
sexta, 15/02/2019 à(s) 10:59:

> Dear Kiril, Philip and colleagues,
>
> Please explain the nature of reasons that cause trouble in having multiple
> Wikimedia affiliates in the area, as this seems to be context specific.
> It's possible that our context in Russia is very different, which is why
> we are actually welcoming creation of new UGs throughout the country, both
> territorially and thematically oriented ones (on top of the Wikimedia
> Russia national chapter).
> Should you give more reasons why this seems causing conflict, I might.
>
> Over here we are quite happy with existing collaboration at all levels and
> are even looking forward to developing a mechanism to speed up their
> formation throughout the country - namely
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Languages_of_Russia_Community_User_Group
> Myself and other representatives of Wikimedia Russia discussed this in
> detail and welcomed by AffCom secretary during Wikimania 2017
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Frhdkazan/Wikimania2017#Aug.12 And
> in the framework of https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
> initiative, I will eventually proceed to registering a Tatarstan-oriented
> thematic multilingual UG, on top of recently registered
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group
> & Wikimedia Russia, in both of which I am currently a member.
>
> regards,
> farhad
>
> --
> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>
>
> 14.02.2019, 03:25, "Kiril Simeonovski" :
> > Hi Paulo,
> >
> > Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is exactly
> the
> > opposite of what the Affiliations Committee is doing in practice. The
> > so-called 'Brazilian scenario' emerged in Macedonia when, in 2016, the
> > committee decided to recognise a second user group on the same territory
> > without consulting the existing one. This has eventually developed into a
> > problem regarding the overlap in the scope of the two user groups and the
> > resolution was normally sought from the people (more importantly
> > volunteers) who were not willing this to happen. It should be also noted
> > that Macedonia is a country with only 2 million inhabitants unlike
> Brazil's
> > over 200 million and this has been mentioned numerous times by different
> > people in the movement to refer to the severity of the problem.
> >
> > My opinion is that the Affiliations Committee has no vision on the future
> > of the Wikimedia movement and their main efficiency indicator is the
> number
> > of user groups they recognise with no care about the consequencies of the
> > apparent wrongdoing. They managed to bring the tally to over 100 user
> > groups and the Wikimedia Foundation even got engaged to celebrate this
> > achievement, while they did not give a damn about the problems that they
> > have posed with their light-minded routine. Moreover, when you approach
> > them with some relevant questions, they simply brush off and respond
> with a
> > months-long delay.
> >
> > In conclusion, the Affiliations Committee is artificially creating
> problems
> > as a result of their recognition policy and is seeking resolution from
> > volunteers that were not consulted at all about the potential
> > consequencies. This is a waste of volunteer time and efforts for
> something
> > that could have easily been prevented. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia
> > Foundation and some other voices in the movement contribute to this
> misery
> > and it is highly unprobable that any complaint to any one in the movement
> > would pay off.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kiril
> >
> > On сре., 13 фев. 2019 г. at 16:13 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  Hello,
> >>
> >>  camelia boban  escreveu no dia terça,
> 12/02/2019
> >>  à(s) 11:18:
> >>
> >>  > (...)
> >>  > In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement, AffCom
> has
> >>  > acted as it always does when it receives affiliation requests: it
> >>  assesses
> >>  > the territorial overlap and the declared purpose of the requests with
> >>  > others affiliates present in the territory, contacting the already
> >>  > recognized affiliates to hear from them about any concerns, using the
> >>  > experience and knowledge on the territory of each of its 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Kiril Simeonovski]

Hi Farkhad,

The troubles arise when there are multiple user groups whose activities are
aimed at primarily promoting the Wikimedia projects on one language or/and
they are centred on the same geographic area. This would not be a problem
for culturally and linguistically diverse countries with significant share
of the world's total population like Russia or India but it definitely
invites problems in small, mostly European, countries where it is not the
case. So, my opposition is not on having multiple user groups in one
country or large grographic area that abounds in cultural and linguistic
diversity but on doing it in areas that have the opposite. This would
translate into something like having multiple user groups on promoting only
the Tatar or Bashkir Wikipedia with overlapping scopes because the
Affiliations Committee failed to contact the existing affiliates on
resolving why the co-existence of additional ones with almost identical
scope is needed before making the cut and recognise them.

Best,
Kiril



On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:59 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
f...@yandex.com> wrote:

> Dear Kiril, Philip and colleagues,
>
> Please explain the nature of reasons that cause trouble in having multiple
> Wikimedia affiliates in the area, as this seems to be context specific.
> It's possible that our context in Russia is very different, which is why
> we are actually welcoming creation of new UGs throughout the country, both
> territorially and thematically oriented ones (on top of the Wikimedia
> Russia national chapter).
> Should you give more reasons why this seems causing conflict, I might.
>
> Over here we are quite happy with existing collaboration at all levels and
> are even looking forward to developing a mechanism to speed up their
> formation throughout the country - namely
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Languages_of_Russia_Community_User_Group
> Myself and other representatives of Wikimedia Russia discussed this in
> detail and welcomed by AffCom secretary during Wikimania 2017
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Frhdkazan/Wikimania2017#Aug.12 And
> in the framework of https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
> initiative, I will eventually proceed to registering a Tatarstan-oriented
> thematic multilingual UG, on top of recently registered
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group
> & Wikimedia Russia, in both of which I am currently a member.
>
> regards,
> farhad
>
> --
> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>
>
> 14.02.2019, 03:25, "Kiril Simeonovski" :
> > Hi Paulo,
> >
> > Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is exactly
> the
> > opposite of what the Affiliations Committee is doing in practice. The
> > so-called 'Brazilian scenario' emerged in Macedonia when, in 2016, the
> > committee decided to recognise a second user group on the same territory
> > without consulting the existing one. This has eventually developed into a
> > problem regarding the overlap in the scope of the two user groups and the
> > resolution was normally sought from the people (more importantly
> > volunteers) who were not willing this to happen. It should be also noted
> > that Macedonia is a country with only 2 million inhabitants unlike
> Brazil's
> > over 200 million and this has been mentioned numerous times by different
> > people in the movement to refer to the severity of the problem.
> >
> > My opinion is that the Affiliations Committee has no vision on the future
> > of the Wikimedia movement and their main efficiency indicator is the
> number
> > of user groups they recognise with no care about the consequencies of the
> > apparent wrongdoing. They managed to bring the tally to over 100 user
> > groups and the Wikimedia Foundation even got engaged to celebrate this
> > achievement, while they did not give a damn about the problems that they
> > have posed with their light-minded routine. Moreover, when you approach
> > them with some relevant questions, they simply brush off and respond
> with a
> > months-long delay.
> >
> > In conclusion, the Affiliations Committee is artificially creating
> problems
> > as a result of their recognition policy and is seeking resolution from
> > volunteers that were not consulted at all about the potential
> > consequencies. This is a waste of volunteer time and efforts for
> something
> > that could have easily been prevented. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia
> > Foundation and some other voices in the movement contribute to this
> misery
> > and it is highly unprobable that any complaint to any one in the movement
> > would pay off.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kiril
> >
> > On сре., 13 фев. 2019 г. at 16:13 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  Hello,
> >>
> >>  camelia boban  escreveu no dia terça,
> 12/02/2019
> >>  à(s) 11:18:
> >>
> >>  > (...)
> >>  > In line with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin]

Dear Kiril, Philip and colleagues,

Please explain the nature of reasons that cause trouble in having multiple 
Wikimedia affiliates in the area, as this seems to be context specific.
It's possible that our context in Russia is very different, which is why we are 
actually welcoming creation of new UGs throughout the country, both 
territorially and thematically oriented ones (on top of the Wikimedia Russia 
national chapter). 
Should you give more reasons why this seems causing conflict, I might.  

Over here we are quite happy with existing collaboration at all levels and are 
even looking forward to developing a mechanism to speed up their formation 
throughout the country - namely 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Languages_of_Russia_Community_User_Group
 Myself and other representatives of Wikimedia Russia discussed this in detail 
and welcomed by AffCom secretary during Wikimania 2017  
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Frhdkazan/Wikimania2017#Aug.12 And in the 
framework of https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region initiative, I will 
eventually proceed to registering a Tatarstan-oriented thematic multilingual 
UG, on top of recently registered 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group
 & Wikimedia Russia, in both of which I am currently a member.

regards,
farhad

-- 
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / 
skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan


14.02.2019, 03:25, "Kiril Simeonovski" :
> Hi Paulo,
>
> Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is exactly the
> opposite of what the Affiliations Committee is doing in practice. The
> so-called 'Brazilian scenario' emerged in Macedonia when, in 2016, the
> committee decided to recognise a second user group on the same territory
> without consulting the existing one. This has eventually developed into a
> problem regarding the overlap in the scope of the two user groups and the
> resolution was normally sought from the people (more importantly
> volunteers) who were not willing this to happen. It should be also noted
> that Macedonia is a country with only 2 million inhabitants unlike Brazil's
> over 200 million and this has been mentioned numerous times by different
> people in the movement to refer to the severity of the problem.
>
> My opinion is that the Affiliations Committee has no vision on the future
> of the Wikimedia movement and their main efficiency indicator is the number
> of user groups they recognise with no care about the consequencies of the
> apparent wrongdoing. They managed to bring the tally to over 100 user
> groups and the Wikimedia Foundation even got engaged to celebrate this
> achievement, while they did not give a damn about the problems that they
> have posed with their light-minded routine. Moreover, when you approach
> them with some relevant questions, they simply brush off and respond with a
> months-long delay.
>
> In conclusion, the Affiliations Committee is artificially creating problems
> as a result of their recognition policy and is seeking resolution from
> volunteers that were not consulted at all about the potential
> consequencies. This is a waste of volunteer time and efforts for something
> that could have easily been prevented. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia
> Foundation and some other voices in the movement contribute to this misery
> and it is highly unprobable that any complaint to any one in the movement
> would pay off.
>
> Best regards,
> Kiril
>
> On сре., 13 фев. 2019 г. at 16:13 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hello,
>>
>>  camelia boban  escreveu no dia terça, 12/02/2019
>>  à(s) 11:18:
>>
>>  > (...)
>>  > In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement, AffCom has
>>  > acted as it always does when it receives affiliation requests: it
>>  assesses
>>  > the territorial overlap and the declared purpose of the requests with
>>  > others affiliates present in the territory, contacting the already
>>  > recognized affiliates to hear from them about any concerns, using the
>>  > experience and knowledge on the territory of each of its members.
>>  >
>>
>>  I suppose this was not in effect back in 2015, when Wiki Education Brazil
>>  was approved, as neither the existing affiliate in Brazil - UG Wikimedia
>>  in Brazil -, nor Wikimedia Portugal, have been consulted about it, even
>>  when it totally overlapped with the territory of the existing affiliate in
>>  Brazil, and was announced by AffCom as having a Lusophone target, therefore
>>  interfering in Portugal as well. Furthermore, at the date it was approved,
>>  Wiki Education Brazil was already in open conflict with the existing
>>  affiliate in Brazil, which makes the approval decision by AffCom absolutely
>>  incomprehensible.
>>
>>  Actually, I really fail to understand why the candidatures to AffCom
>>  continue allowed to be proposed in absolute secrecy, leaving any problems
>>  caused by their 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Kiril Simeonovski]

Hi Paulo,

Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is exactly the
opposite of what the Affiliations Committee is doing in practice. The
so-called 'Brazilian scenario' emerged in Macedonia when, in 2016, the
committee decided to recognise a second user group on the same territory
without consulting the existing one. This has eventually developed into a
problem regarding the overlap in the scope of the two user groups and the
resolution was normally sought from the people (more importantly
volunteers) who were not willing this to happen. It should be also noted
that Macedonia is a country with only 2 million inhabitants unlike Brazil's
over 200 million and this has been mentioned numerous times by different
people in the movement to refer to the severity of the problem.

My opinion is that the Affiliations Committee has no vision on the future
of the Wikimedia movement and their main efficiency indicator is the number
of user groups they recognise with no care about the consequencies of the
apparent wrongdoing. They managed to bring the tally to over 100 user
groups and the Wikimedia Foundation even got engaged to celebrate this
achievement, while they did not give a damn about the problems that they
have posed with their light-minded routine. Moreover, when you approach
them with some relevant questions, they simply brush off and respond with a
months-long delay.

In conclusion, the Affiliations Committee is artificially creating problems
as a result of their recognition policy and is seeking resolution from
volunteers that were not consulted at all about the potential
consequencies. This is a waste of volunteer time and efforts for something
that could have easily been prevented. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia
Foundation and some other voices in the movement contribute to this misery
and it is highly unprobable that any complaint to any one in the movement
would pay off.

Best regards,
Kiril

On сре., 13 фев. 2019 г. at 16:13 Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> camelia boban  escreveu no dia terça, 12/02/2019
> à(s) 11:18:
>
>
> > (...)
> > In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement, AffCom has
> > acted as it always does when it receives affiliation requests: it
> assesses
> > the territorial overlap and the declared purpose of the requests with
> > others affiliates present in the territory, contacting the already
> > recognized affiliates to hear from them about any concerns, using the
> > experience and knowledge on the territory of each of its members.
> >
>
> I suppose this was not in effect back in 2015, when Wiki Education Brazil
> was approved, as neither the existing affiliate in Brazil  - UG Wikimedia
> in Brazil -, nor Wikimedia Portugal, have been consulted about it, even
> when it totally overlapped with the territory of the existing affiliate in
> Brazil, and was announced by AffCom as having a Lusophone target, therefore
> interfering in Portugal as well. Furthermore, at the date it was approved,
> Wiki Education Brazil was already in open conflict with the existing
> affiliate in Brazil, which makes the approval decision by AffCom absolutely
> incomprehensible.
>
> Actually, I really fail to understand why the candidatures to AffCom
> continue allowed to be proposed in absolute secrecy, leaving any problems
> caused by their approvals to be dealt with by the community after the
> problem is already installed. Does not seem a very clever way of acting.
>
> Best,
>
> Paulo - DarwIn
> Wikimedia Portugal
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hello,

camelia boban  escreveu no dia terça, 12/02/2019
à(s) 11:18:


> (...)
> In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement, AffCom has
> acted as it always does when it receives affiliation requests: it assesses
> the territorial overlap and the declared purpose of the requests with
> others affiliates present in the territory, contacting the already
> recognized affiliates to hear from them about any concerns, using the
> experience and knowledge on the territory of each of its members.
>

I suppose this was not in effect back in 2015, when Wiki Education Brazil
was approved, as neither the existing affiliate in Brazil  - UG Wikimedia
in Brazil -, nor Wikimedia Portugal, have been consulted about it, even
when it totally overlapped with the territory of the existing affiliate in
Brazil, and was announced by AffCom as having a Lusophone target, therefore
interfering in Portugal as well. Furthermore, at the date it was approved,
Wiki Education Brazil was already in open conflict with the existing
affiliate in Brazil, which makes the approval decision by AffCom absolutely
incomprehensible.

Actually, I really fail to understand why the candidatures to AffCom
continue allowed to be proposed in absolute secrecy, leaving any problems
caused by their approvals to be dealt with by the community after the
problem is already installed. Does not seem a very clever way of acting.

Best,

Paulo - DarwIn
Wikimedia Portugal
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Philip Kopetzky]

Hi Camelia,

thanks for the reply - was there any consultation of the first user group
before the decision was made? It should've been obvious from their reports
and grant applications (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Simple/Applications/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group/2018/H2
) that Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group‎  also has volunteers
and activities in Albania, especially in GLAM and Education, which you
attribute to the second group (Wikimedia Community User Group Albania).

The underlying problem here is that nobody feels responsible for our
current affiliate structure and others (especially the affiliates affected
by your decisions) are left to deal with the situation themselves. This is
definitely something the working group Roles & Responsibilities needs to
work on in order to have more friction-less affiliates model in the future.
This example right here is a good showcase of how an affiliation model
should not work.

I think it's pointless to blame anyone for this, I just hope we figure out
a better way in the future :-)

Best,
Philip


On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 12:18, camelia boban  wrote:

> Hello everyone, sorry on my delayed answer.
>
> I respond in the name of AffCom as inside the group it is one of the tasks
> assigned to me.
>
> In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement, AffCom has
> acted as it always does when it receives affiliation requests: it assesses
> the territorial overlap and the declared purpose of the requests with
> others affiliates present in the territory, contacting the already
> recognized affiliates to hear from them about any concerns, using the
> experience and knowledge on the territory of each of its members. And it
> suggests, but does not decide affiliation.
>
> In the specific case of Albania, the objectives purpose of the first UG
> (Wikimedia Community User Group Albania) in that specific moment was the
> Albanian language (which is spoken not only in Albania, but also in Kosovo,
> Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece, Turkey, Italy) and activities especially
> related to Wiki Loves Monuments, diversity and Wikidata, OSCAL and Software
> Freedom Kosova. In the case instead of the second UG (Wikimedia Community
> User Group Albania) the purpose was Outreach, GLAM and education,
> everything focused territorially on Albania.
> So no scope overlap, no territory overlap. Furthermore, the two groups had
> always actively collaborated together until that point.
>
> We followed the rules/models we actually have and these are the right
> motivations for which AffCom has suggested at that time the recognition of
> the second group. If instead we want to discuss about find/suggest
> different models of affiliation or chage the existent, this must be a
> separate conversation.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Camelia & Sami,
> on behalf of AffCom
>
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
>
> *| Developer |*
> *Affiliations Committee Treasurer - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group
> WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> M. +39 3383385545
> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> *Wikipedia  | *Twitter
>  *|* *Google Plu
> s
> *
> *WikiDonne * *| **LinkedIn
>   **|* *Aissa
> Technologies* 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno ven 8 feb 2019 alle ore 19:22 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad
> Fatkullin  ha scritto:
>
>> We are likely to eventually have a similar situation in my region of the
>> Russian Federation & we welcome this.
>>
>> 1) A recently recognized Wikimedia Community of Tatar language User Group
>> (WUG TAT) is a language-oriented UG without geographical borders.
>> 2) At the same time, we will eventually need a Tatarstan-centered
>> Wikimedia User Group / Subnational Thematic organization without specific
>> language focus.
>>
>> I am actually in the process of laying the ground for the second. During
>> https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Умный_регион/05.02.2019/en I was given
>> less than a minute, but still managed to convince both Federal Deputy
>> Prime-Minister and Regional President. I will have to craft value
>> proposition statements & roadmaps in a way as to try have this implemented
>> first in my Republic, then across Russia.
>>
>> farhad
>>
>> --
>> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
>> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>>
>>
>> 06.02.2019, 21:02, "Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l" <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:
>> >  I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo,
>> Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe
>> even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a
>> state. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin]

We are likely to eventually have a similar situation in my region of the 
Russian Federation & we welcome this.

1) A recently recognized Wikimedia Community of Tatar language User Group (WUG 
TAT) is a language-oriented UG without geographical borders.
2) At the same time, we will eventually need a Tatarstan-centered Wikimedia 
User Group / Subnational Thematic organization without specific language focus.

I am actually in the process of laying the ground for the second. During 
https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Умный_регион/05.02.2019/en I was given less than 
a minute, but still managed to convince both Federal Deputy Prime-Minister and 
Regional President. I will have to craft value proposition statements & 
roadmaps in a way as to try have this implemented first in my Republic, then 
across Russia.

farhad

-- 
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / 
skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan


06.02.2019, 21:02, "Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l" 
:
>  I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo, 
> Albanian-speaking regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe 
> even Southern Italy and the other one is just centered on Albania as a state. 
> This is not the same scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially, also Greece) 
> since in that case we had two group precisely centered on one country.
>
> It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not practical in 
> the end by itself...  You cannot force people to get rid of a group that 
> might become a future national chapter because their language is spoken by 
> many other people in neighboring countries who already clustered in a  
> previous UG. So it should not be considered a critical situation per se, 
> although the interaction of the two UGs should be closely monitored and 
> addressed since the beginning.
>
> What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to 
> languages (of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same problem 
> with a future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or Croatia, with a 
> Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap UG active in a 
> language distributed along various borders... and so on. They don't seem to 
> show huge problems when similar situation exist in reality but they could 
> degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with other UGs or national 
> chapters.
> I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and I 
> think that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I strongly 
> advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be 
> implemented. Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia 
> Thematic Organization, although in that case there is no main entity 
> competing on the area of a sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which 
> is not necessarily a better scenario, just complex in a different way). We 
> call them almost all "User groups" but they are sometimes local geographical 
> unions of users and volunteers (embryonic future national chapters or just 
> regional associations), language-oriented associations created to involve 
> minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified by a topic. They all 
> have different purpose and should be rationalized somehow. I think I pushed a 
> little bit in that direction on the application to WikiSummit, stressing the 
> importance to make order in the field.
> IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations (specifically for 
> a language), cross-language thematic organization or local UG centered on a 
> vague historic geographical area or a very precise administrative one. And 
> think carefully about their status. This is however just a vague idea.
>
> Alessandro
>    Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky 
>  ha scritto:
>
>  Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are
> left to deal with the fallout of this decision.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Kirill,
>>
>>  I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
>>  followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
>>  possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  Paulo
>>
>>  2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha :
>>
>>>  ​ Hi Kirill
>>>
>>>   Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
>>>  very same question.
>>>
>>>  Mardetanha
>>>
>>>  On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
>>>  philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  > Hi Kirill,
>>>  >
>>>  > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the
>>>  Wikimedians
>>>  > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
>>>  > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
>>>  > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>>>  >
>>>  > Best,
>>>  > Philip
>>>  >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 I guess... probably one include also the majority of Kosovo, Albanian-speaking 
regions of Greece, P.Y.R.O.M./North Macedonia and maybe even Southern Italy and 
the other one is just centered on Albania as a state. This is not the same 
scenario as Brazil (not sure if, partially, also Greece) since in that case we 
had two group precisely centered on one country. 

It's not totally practical but the geopolitical situation is not practical in 
the end by itself...  You cannot force people to get rid of a group that might 
become a future national chapter because their language is spoken by many other 
people in neighboring countries who already clustered in a  previous UG. So it 
should not be considered a critical situation per se, although the interaction 
of the two UGs should be closely monitored and addressed since the beginning. 

What is missing is a precise guideline or attention to UG related to languages 
(of minorities or globally spoken). You could have the same problem with a 
future Italian minor languages UG active in Corsica or Croatia, with a 
Retho-romance Alpine language user group, with a gender gap UG active in a 
language distributed along various borders... and so on. They don't seem to 
show huge problems when similar situation exist in reality but they could 
degenerate, stop cooperation, or never start it with other UGs or national 
chapters.
I value plurality, I want UG to be created and catalyze activities, and I think 
that the problem is mostly the character of people. However, I strongly 
advocate a more structured architecture of language-based UG to be implemented. 
Basically what I suppose was done with Catalan Wikimedia Thematic Organization, 
although in that case there is no main entity competing on the area of a 
sovereign country where Catalan is spoken (which is not necessarily a better 
scenario, just complex in a different way). We call them almost all "User 
groups" but they are sometimes local geographical unions of users and 
volunteers (embryonic future national chapters or just regional associations), 
language-oriented associations created to involve minorities or cross-projects 
of interested users unified by a topic. They all have different purpose and 
should be rationalized somehow. I think I pushed a little bit in that direction 
on the application to WikiSummit, stressing the importance to make order in the 
field.
IMHO, we should have single-language thematic organizations (specifically for a 
language), cross-language thematic organization or local UG centered on a vague 
historic geographical area or a very precise administrative one. And think 
carefully about their status. This is however just a vague idea.

Alessandro
   Il mercoledì 6 febbraio 2019, 18:11:57 CET, Philip Kopetzky 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are
left to deal with the fallout of this decision.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hi Kirill,
>
> I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
> followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
> possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
>
> Best,
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha :
>
>> ​ Hi Kirill
>>
>>  Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
>> very same question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mardetanha
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
>> philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Kirill,
>> >
>> > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the
>> Wikimedians
>> > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
>> > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
>> > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Philip
>> >
>> > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi everyone!
>> > >
>> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
>> recognized
>> > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User
>> Group.
>> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
>> > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with
>> other
>> > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
>> Albania
>> > > and across the region.
>> > >
>> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Kirill Lokshin
>> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
>> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
>> > Group_Albania
>> > >
>> > > ___
>> > > Affiliates mailing list
>> > > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>> > >
>> > >
>> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Philip Kopetzky]

Just to close off this thread, there seemingly is no plan and others are
left to deal with the fallout of this decision.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 08:23, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hi Kirill,
>
> I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
> followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
> possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.
>
> Best,
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha :
>
>> ​ Hi Kirill
>>
>>   Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
>> very same question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mardetanha
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
>> philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Kirill,
>> >
>> > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the
>> Wikimedians
>> > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
>> > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
>> > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Philip
>> >
>> > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi everyone!
>> > >
>> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
>> recognized
>> > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User
>> Group.
>> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
>> > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with
>> other
>> > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
>> Albania
>> > > and across the region.
>> > >
>> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Kirill Lokshin
>> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
>> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
>> > Group_Albania
>> > >
>> > > ___
>> > > Affiliates mailing list
>> > > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>> > >
>> > >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: 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 and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hi Kirill,

I join Philip and Mardetanha on their concerns and questions. Having
followed closely the Brazil situation - which ended up in the worst
possible way, IMO - I'm very interested in your answer.

Best,

Paulo

2018-06-11 13:07 GMT+01:00 Mardetanha :

> ​ Hi Kirill
>
>   Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
> very same question.
>
>
>
> Mardetanha
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kirill,
> >
> > what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
> > of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
> > simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
> > reconising even more user groups from the same area?
> >
> > Best,
> > Philip
> >
> > On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone!
> > >
> > > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
> recognized
> > > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User
> Group.
> > > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
> > > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other
> > > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in
> Albania
> > > and across the region.
> > >
> > > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
> > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
> > Group_Albania
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Affiliates mailing list
> > > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Mardetanha]

​ Hi Kirill

  Philip's concerns were not answered, would you please respond, I had the
very same question.



Mardetanha

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Hi Kirill,
>
> what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
> of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
> simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
> reconising even more user groups from the same area?
>
> Best,
> Philip
>
> On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> > [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User Group.
> > The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
> > projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other
> > Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in Albania
> > and across the region.
> >
> > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kirill Lokshin
> > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_
> Group_Albania
> >
> > ___
> > Affiliates mailing list
> > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania

[Philip Kopetzky]

Hi Kirill,

what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
reconising even more user groups from the same area?

Best,
Philip

On 22 May 2018 at 22:07, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> [1] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania [2] as a Wikimedia User Group.
> The group aims to improve content about Albania across the Wikimedia
> projects, including Commons and Wikidata, and to collaborate with other
> Wikimedia user groups, chapters, and other free culture groups in Albania
> and across the region.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Resolutions/Recognition_Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,