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

I agree with Delphine. And I think it's worth to mention that the immediate termination is for "serious and urgent cases" only and that there is a more partnering process for less serious cases. Alice. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote: > On 24 August

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

On 24 August 2016 at 22:50, Michael Peel wrote: > > This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says: > "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately > according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)" > There's

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

> On 23 Aug 2016, at 11:48, Asaf Bartov wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Chris Keating > > wrote: > >>> Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do >>> not meet

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria) + opening WUG applications for Chapter and ThOrgs

Thanks Carlos - that seems a very clear explanation of where we are to me. Regards, Chris On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Carlos M. Colina wrote: > Hello Rogol, > > Let me try to clarify that. When the AffCom discussed with the board > liaisons whether we needed a new

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

Thanks for these updates, Carlos and all. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Salvador A wrote: > I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to > quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some > consequences of this new criteria for

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

From the perspective of Wiki Project Med Foundation, I am happy to see criteria for thorg / chapter status. It makes a previously somewhat unclear application process more concrete. James On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Christophe Henner wrote: > Hi Brill, > >

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

Hi Brill, Everything is a discussion. There has been interesting points and discussions for many mails, and we would like that to continue. Because all of those opinions are interesting in setting the movement strategy. Howevere the *temporary* criteria are to be used by AffCom now. So that

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

I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a discussion. I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT fostering community. To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to take the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal

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

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Chris Keating wrote: > > Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do > > not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense > for > > that, and those chapters should be notified and be

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

> > To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to > bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and > promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide > x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c

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

Seriously, it's just board and affcom doing their job ... And oh surprise, they did not involved the whole communities on temporary criteria ... I just want to thanks them for not wasting my time. I'd rather be involve in the strategy! 2016-08-23 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :

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

Hi, What surprized me is the bad faith you assumed regarding AffCom and BoT when during the past weeks I believe we've shown through actions, and not talks, that we did listen to the feedback and acted on it. The discussion on wikimedia-l have been really good to read for a few weeks and I would

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

I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of

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

Hi Gnangarra, This is not a discussion, and this is by design. As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be only about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more interesting and

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

So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors... sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after all of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was heard and their requests

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

I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings. Romaine said that it's desirable

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

Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you need to assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we all face

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

Gnangarra, I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real people,

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

​If an affiliate wants guidence to becoming a chapter thats great and asking for that help as well a receiving it is a positive, yet that is not whats being asked or discussed it about defining numbers and punishments for those that dont achieve those numbers. We can achieve success within

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

I agree that Affcom, as well as WMF, could do more to support affiliates in all stages of development. However, the subject of this thread is the criteria for chapter and thematic organization status. Chapter or thematic organization status comes with some privelidges like the right to vote for

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

This is beautifully said. I just love it. Thank you! > On Aug 22, 2016, at 8:13 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > > We need to focus on building communities > > To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to > bring down chapters we should be focusing on

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

Why do we need to balance numbers against what matters, what is wrong with trust and assuming good faith its made wikipedia the special thing it is, we didnt need qualifications to be part of it, we didnt have quotas, we could all do as little or as much as we liked, every effort mattered it

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

We need to focus on building communities To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide x,y,z to help support the expansion

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

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

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

Carlos, I completely agree that resources are a prerequisite for organizational success. A group in rural Afganistan will have a much different operating environment than a group in metropolitan London, and it is more likely that the group in London will be a chapter. My understanding is that

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

Hi Erika, If a highly valuable community organizer leaves a chapter, or it changes it leadership radically, it's not the end of the world. It has happened to many of us. And the solution would not be simply "renaming" it from Chapter to UG -that's not going to happen. We have supported

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

Hi John, El 22/08/2016 a las 04:50 a.m., John Mark Vandenberg escribió: I agree with Ben. It is worthwhile understand why existing chapters may not meet these criteria, especially if it is viable/active chapters that fail the criteria, rather than the few dormant chapters who also fail

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

<mailto:affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org>> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" <chapt...@wikimedia.ch <mailto:chapt...@wikimedia.ch>> Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria Date: Sun, Aug

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

: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, > "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" < > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" <chapt...@wikimedia.ch> > Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] C

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

;Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com> > To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, > "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" < > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" <chapt.

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

never be like pushing a "delete button"! Sent from my HTC - Reply message - From: "Ben Creasy" <b...@bencreasy.com> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and them

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

I agree with Ben. It is worthwhile understand why existing chapters may not meet these criteria, especially if it is viable/active chapters that fail the criteria, rather than the few dormant chapters who also fail simpler criteria. I suspect these criteria, which are a good baseline, can be

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

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

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

> What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine? One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to apply, which

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

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Pine W wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also > apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result > of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6

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

Hello Lane, The proposed criteria will apply to new organizations. However, we should all help all affiliates to operate at higher standards, and we're willing and happy to assist with anything affiliates need to grow :-) El 19/08/2016 a las 05:51 p.m., Lane Rasberry escribió: Hello, Do

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

Hello Pine, El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió: Hi Carlos, In general, I like the new criteria. I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting these standards and therefore

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

>, >Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list ><affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Cc: Wikimedia Chapters general discussions <chapt...@wikimedia.ch> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and >thematic organisation criteria > Message-ID: >

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

I agree with Lane. Setting higher criteria is all well and good -- as is expecting boards to be cognizant of these expectations. But we are dealing with volunteers doing a significant amount of free digital labor and organizing. To set a bar super high in that structure is a lot to expect of

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

Hi Carlos, In general, I like the new criteria. I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about the status of

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

The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official status at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter. I personally think

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

Hello, Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to significantly higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the case? yours, On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina