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

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

2016-08-25 Thread Alice Wiegand

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 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 no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in
> this document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group
> agreements, but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this
> process document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I
> won't go into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it
> fairer to all parties.
> >
>
> I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in
> touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process,
> and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at
> actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before
> entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough
> (from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you
> can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the
> line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard
> deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other
> end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think
> it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities
> often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
>
> --
> @notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
> lost.
> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> http://blog.notanendive.org
> Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-25 Thread Delphine Ménard

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 no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in this 
> document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group agreements, 
> but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this process 
> document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I won't go 
> into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it fairer to all 
> parties.
>

I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in
touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process,
and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at
actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before
entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough
(from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you
can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the
line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard
deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other
end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think
it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities
often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.

Best,

Delphine

-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

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

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

2016-08-24 Thread Michael Peel


> 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 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 this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
>> 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
>> 
>> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
>> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
>> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
>> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>> 
>> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
>> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
>> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
>> towards.
>> 
> 
> As of this year, a process does exist, and is reflected here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
>  
> 

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 no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in this 
document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group agreements, but 
it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this process document. 
There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I won't go into here. 
But I think this process needs rewriting to make it fairer to all parties.

> This process is being followed, right now, to review the status of inactive
> and non-compliant chapters, at long last.

That's good news.

Thanks,
Mike

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

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

2016-08-24 Thread Chris Keating

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 resolution at our July meeting, we agreed
> that the existing resolution [1] is already sufficient as we're not
> stepping outside of the existing framework.  These criteria are a first
> attempt to communicate more clearly what the AffCom expects in terms of
> "demonstrable programmatic results" in order for an application to be
> supported and passed on to the board for approval. Still, the idea is to
> have the AffCom work on a coordinated consultation on these criteria and
> other aspects of affiliate strategy in the upcoming movement consultations
> since at the end, all are related.
>
> So instead of keeping Chapter and ThOrg applications on hold for longer,
> and because it's been a long while already, the Board has approved the
> Affiliations Committee to accept applications under the potential new
> criteria to test them and to remove the block on applications immediately
> -and it was about time 8-) Based on this future consultation, the
> proposed new criteria will probably be revised and refined to reflect the
> feedback received from the community before putting them as "official" for
> all Chapters and ThOrgs.
>
> Additionally, and trying to make the discussion clearer: AFAIK the
> discussion is an essential part of the movement, but at this time, this is
> not a coordinated consultation because again, it will be part of a larger
> and coordinated movement consultation. In order that the AffCom can focus
> on reopening Chapter and ThOrg applications, everyone is welcome to share
> valuable input on the talk pages [2] [3] on Meta, as it will be better
> organized and useful for reference when the coordinates consultation starts
> in a few months from now.  In the meantime, we can answer questions here,
> or there, but still, it would be better done on the talk pages for
> transparency, clarity and easiness of interaction, since not everyone is on
> the Wikimedia-l, Affiliates-l or Chapters-L lists.
>
> Thanks,
> M.
>
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11#Movement_roles
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/
> Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_
> Committee/Chapter_Summary_Matrix
>
> El 24/08/2016 a las 04:17 p.m., Rogol Domedonfors escribió:
>
> The pronouncement of Fri Aug 19 12:36:01 UTC 2016 states "the Board of
> Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use
> these three new criteria for all new applicants" and as a consequence the
> Board Chair has stated, on Tue Aug 23 06:46:47 UTC 2016, "This is not a
> discussion".  In the interests of transparency, please could the Community
> be informed of the text of the Board Resolution that laid down these
> criteria?
>
> The Board chair has also informed us (on Tue Aug 23 12:34:37 UTC 2016) that
> *"*Everything is a discussion" and "our main goal for this year is to make
> sure we finally have a comprehensive movement strategy".  This is of course
> excellent news, especially since dialogue between the Board and the
> Community on these issues has been conspicuous by its absence 
> [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archives/2016#Deep_strategy].
> Exactly how and where will this engagement take place?  
> Perhapshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Strategy_Alpha might be 
> a
> place to plan the mechanisms for that engagement?
>
> "Rogol Domedonfors"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>  
> 
>
>
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> , Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados  son
> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
> Wikimedia, Inc. , una organización
> sin fines de lucro. Otros

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

2016-08-24 Thread Sam Klein

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 existing affiliates. I want to be
> clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
>
> Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to
> meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be unfair
> to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
> Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work among
> those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and
> Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate
> status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid to
> get them dormant.
>
> This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff
> makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible
> to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
> requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case
> if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
>
> ---
> *Possible questions:*
>
> *Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my
> recognition as chapter?*
>
> *A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the
> situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
>
> *Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
>
> *A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, WMF
> or other affiliates help if is needed.
>
> *Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without
> activity and nothing had happened so far.*
>
> *A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
>
> ---
> If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm
> sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
>
> Regards!
>
> 2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra :
>
> > 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 in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
> fair
> >
> > On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> 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, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress.
> >> We
> >> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
> >> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
> >> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
> >>
> >> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
> >> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
> >> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
> >>
> >> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I
> plan
> >> to return here in a week or two.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Affiliates mailing list
> > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Salvador Alcántar*
> *@salvador_alc*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:

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

2016-08-23 Thread James Heilman

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,
>
> 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
> AffCom can actually continue its work, and resume approving new chapters
> (which was on hold for month) without postponing it.
>
> As we said on other emails few weeks, we want to use the coming year to
> form a movement strategy. A strategy that is comprehensive of who we are, a
> global movement. So it would be, I believe, a waste of time to work /
> discuss over criterieas that will have to be adapted in a few month.
>
> The AffCom came up with, what I think, and from the previous emails, is
> good criterias. They might need some interpretation, and I'm sure the
> AffCom will not apply them bluntly.  And again they are a temporary
> framework.
>
> So again, not shutting down the discussion, discussion is more than welcome
> and needed. But the discussion will impact the long term criterias and
> AffCom role and responsabilities. which, I believe, is a much more
> important discussions. And the different opinions voiced in reaction to
> those criterias are really interesting.
>
> Have a nice day :)
>
> Christophe
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Brill Lyle 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 approach to
> > engagement on any level.
> >
> > I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the
> > dismissive responses by those who seem to be on the committee.
> >
> > If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more
> > understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach
> seems
> > a real misstep.
> >
> > - Erika
> >
> > > On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen
> > we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
> > >
> > > What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the
> > affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in
> exactly
> > the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012
> > with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern
> > Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought
> they
> > had with affcom.
> > >
> > > All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption
> > of good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we
> > make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a
> > level of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to
> trust
> > and assuming good faith.
> > >
> > > Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> > criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> > to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make
> that
> > choice
> > >
> > >> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner 
> > wrote:
> > >> 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 important, topic.
> > >>
> > >> As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more
> to
> > >> come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and
> summer),
> > it
> > >> is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do
> we
> > >> make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia
> > organizations
> > >> to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion
> > will
> > >> come.
> > >>
> > >> But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> > consultation
> > >> about those provisional criterias and

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

2016-08-23 Thread Christophe Henner

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
AffCom can actually continue its work, and resume approving new chapters
(which was on hold for month) without postponing it.

As we said on other emails few weeks, we want to use the coming year to
form a movement strategy. A strategy that is comprehensive of who we are, a
global movement. So it would be, I believe, a waste of time to work /
discuss over criterieas that will have to be adapted in a few month.

The AffCom came up with, what I think, and from the previous emails, is
good criterias. They might need some interpretation, and I'm sure the
AffCom will not apply them bluntly.  And again they are a temporary
framework.

So again, not shutting down the discussion, discussion is more than welcome
and needed. But the discussion will impact the long term criterias and
AffCom role and responsabilities. which, I believe, is a much more
important discussions. And the different opinions voiced in reaction to
those criterias are really interesting.

Have a nice day :)

Christophe




On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Brill Lyle  wrote:

> 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 approach to
> engagement on any level.
>
> I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the
> dismissive responses by those who seem to be on the committee.
>
> If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more
> understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach seems
> a real misstep.
>
> - Erika
>
> > On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > 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 the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen
> we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
> >
> > What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the
> affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly
> the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012
> with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern
> Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they
> had with affcom.
> >
> > All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption
> of good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we
> make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a
> level of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust
> and assuming good faith.
> >
> > Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
> choice
> >
> >> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
> >> 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 important, topic.
> >>
> >> As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> >> come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
> it
> >> is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> >> make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia
> organizations
> >> to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion
> will
> >> come.
> >>
> >> But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> consultation
> >> about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> >> strategy.
> >>
> >> That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I
> thought
> >> was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom
> support
> >> affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates
> live by
> >> their engagements.
> >>
> >> One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
> >>
> >> As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> >> white.
> >>
> >>

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

2016-08-23 Thread Brill Lyle

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 approach to engagement on 
any level. 

I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the dismissive 
responses by those who seem to be on the committee. 

If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more 
understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach seems a 
real misstep. 

- Erika

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> 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 the 
> discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally 
> hear about them but are expected to follow them.
> 
> What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates to 
> being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same 
> response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the 
> loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups 
> being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had with 
> affcom.  
> 
> All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of 
> good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make 
> rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of 
> distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and 
> assuming good faith.
> 
> Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create 
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to 
> make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that choice
> 
>> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner  wrote:
>> 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 important, topic.
>> 
>> As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
>> come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it
>> is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
>> make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
>> to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
>> come.
>> 
>> But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation
>> about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
>> strategy.
>> 
>> That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
>> was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
>> affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by
>> their engagements.
>> 
>> One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
>> 
>> As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
>> white.
>> 
>> Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen
>> on a much larger topic that includes them.
>> AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
>> duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
>> recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and
>> sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
>> 
>> Happy to further that discussion,
>> 
>> Have a all great day
>> 
>> Christophe
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>> 
>> > 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 were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
>> > Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
>> >
>> > On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, 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 existing affiliates. I want to be
>> > > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
>> > >
>> > > Romaine said that it's desirable to have

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

2016-08-23 Thread Asaf Bartov

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 put on the path to
> > meeting standards or losing their status.
> >
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
> 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
>
> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>
> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
> towards.
>

As of this year, a process does exist, and is reflected here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

(perhaps a link to this should be added to the AffCom nav-box.)

This process is being followed, right now, to review the status of inactive
and non-compliant chapters, at long last.

   A.

-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-23 Thread Chris Keating

>
> 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 to
> assist user groups to expand...
>

Well, yes - and (at least so far as I can tell from my point of view) there
is a huge shortage of support for user groups and smaller chapters.

However, there are some chapters that genuinely don't exist any more and
there is not much point having organisations that have effectively shut up
shop listed as Wikimedia chapters.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-23 Thread Pierre-Selim

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 :

> 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
> the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont
> normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
>
> What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates
> to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same
> response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the
> loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe
> groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had
> with affcom.
>
> All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of
> good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make
> rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level
> of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and
> assuming good faith.
>
> Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
> choice
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 important, topic.
> >
> > As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> > come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
> it
> > is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> > make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
> > to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
> > come.
> >
> > But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> consultation
> > about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> > strategy.
> >
> > That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
> > was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
> > affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live
> by
> > their engagements.
> >
> > One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
> >
> > As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> > white.
> >
> > Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
> happen
> > on a much larger topic that includes them.
> > AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
> > duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
> > recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties
> and
> > sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
> >
> > Happy to further that discussion,
> >
> > Have a all great day
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > 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 were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
> > > Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish
> them
> > >
> > > On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, 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 existing affiliates. I want to
> be
> > > > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
> > > >
> > > > Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized
> affiliates
> > to
> > > > meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
> > > unfair
> > > > to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg
> and
> > > > Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
> > > among
> > > > those that already are recognized as such.

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

2016-08-23 Thread Christophe Henner

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
love it to keep it that way. Disagreeing is a good thing, when it is done
in a manner that is actually open for a discussion. We will not always be
right, and having people disagreeing and explaining why we might be wrong
is the best way to make sure we make as little wrong decisions as possible.

And I totally agree we need to assume good faith and trust each other, that
is key in the coming strategy process.

And that's also why I'm surprized because setting up those temporaly
criterias is done so that for the next few month AffCom will be able to
work with affiliates to contribute to the strategy process.

Of course for native english speaking / larger chapters, it might not be a
bigh deal. But we also have dozens of smaller organizations that do not
dare be part of this discussion. We also need their opinions, their views,
to know about their needs and expectations. That is where AffCom will be
super useful for the movement.

Again, we have shared that publicly during Wikimania, and I am happy to do
that here to, but our rmain goal for this year is to make sure we finally
have a comprehensive movement strategy. That is where our focus is. So
temporary decisions, like this one, are made so that we focus discussing
about the thing that will shape the movement for years.

I am happy to discuss this here, all I ask is please to assume good faith
and read into the context I'm trying to provide you with.

Have a great day,

Christophe

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> 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
> the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont
> normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
>
> What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates
> to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same
> response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the
> loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe
> groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had
> with affcom.
>
> All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of
> good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make
> rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level
> of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and
> assuming good faith.
>
> Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
> choice
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 important, topic.
> >
> > As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> > come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
> it
> > is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> > make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
> > to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
> > come.
> >
> > But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> consultation
> > about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> > strategy.
> >
> > That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
> > was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
> > affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live
> by
> > their engagements.
> >
> > One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
> >
> > As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> > white.
> >
> > Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
> happen
> > on a much larger topic that includes them.
> > AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
> > duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
> > recognized, supporting them, helping them,

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

2016-08-23 Thread Gnangarra

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
the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont
normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.

What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates
to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same
response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the
loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe
groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had
with affcom.

All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of
good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make
rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level
of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and
assuming good faith.

Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
choice

On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner  wrote:

> 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 important, topic.
>
> As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it
> is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
> to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
> come.
>
> But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation
> about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> strategy.
>
> That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
> was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
> affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by
> their engagements.
>
> One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
>
> As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> white.
>
> Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen
> on a much larger topic that includes them.
> AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
> duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
> recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and
> sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
>
> Happy to further that discussion,
>
> Have a all great day
>
> Christophe
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > 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 were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
> > Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
> >
> > On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, 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 existing affiliates. I want to be
> > > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
> > >
> > > Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates
> to
> > > meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
> > unfair
> > > to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
> > > Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
> > among
> > > those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg
> and
> > > Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep
> affiliate
> > > status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid
> > to
> > > get them dormant.
> > >
> > > This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF
> staff
> > > makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you
> eligible
> > > to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
> > > requirementes it will be reported to AffCom

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

2016-08-23 Thread Christophe Henner

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 important, topic.

As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it
is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
come.

But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation
about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
strategy.

That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by
their engagements.

One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.

As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
white.

Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen
on a much larger topic that includes them.
AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and
sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.

Happy to further that discussion,

Have a all great day

Christophe

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> 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 were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
> Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, 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 existing affiliates. I want to be
> > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
> >
> > Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to
> > meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
> unfair
> > to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
> > Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
> among
> > those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and
> > Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate
> > status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid
> to
> > get them dormant.
> >
> > This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff
> > makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible
> > to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
> > requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case
> > if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
> >
> > ---
> > *Possible questions:*
> >
> > *Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my
> > recognition as chapter?*
> >
> > *A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the
> > situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
> >
> > *Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
> >
> > *A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom,
> WMF
> > or other affiliates help if is needed.
> >
> > *Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without
> > activity and nothing had happened so far.*
> >
> > *A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
> >
> > ---
> > If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm
> > sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
> >
> > Regards!
> >
> > 2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra :
> >
> > > 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 in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
> > fair
> > >
> > > On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Gnangarra,
> > >>
> > >> I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things
> > >> differently may be in the discussion of how we

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

2016-08-23 Thread Gnangarra

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 were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them

On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, 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 existing affiliates. I want to be
> clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
>
> Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to
> meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be unfair
> to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
> Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work among
> those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and
> Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate
> status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid to
> get them dormant.
>
> This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff
> makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible
> to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
> requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case
> if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
>
> ---
> *Possible questions:*
>
> *Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my
> recognition as chapter?*
>
> *A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the
> situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
>
> *Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
>
> *A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, WMF
> or other affiliates help if is needed.
>
> *Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without
> activity and nothing had happened so far.*
>
> *A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
>
> ---
> If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm
> sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
>
> Regards!
>
> 2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra :
>
> > 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 in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
> fair
> >
> > On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> 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, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress.
> >> We
> >> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
> >> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
> >> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
> >>
> >> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
> >> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
> >> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
> >>
> >> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I
> plan
> >> to return here in a week or two.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Affiliates mailing list
> > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Salvador Alcántar*
> *@salvador_alc*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>

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

2016-08-22 Thread Salvador A

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 to have already recognized affiliates to
meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and
Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate
status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid to
get them dormant.

This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff
makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible
to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case
if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.

---
*Possible questions:*

*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my
recognition as chapter?*

*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the
situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.

*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*

*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.

*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without
activity and nothing had happened so far.*

*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.

---
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm
sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P

Regards!

2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra :

> 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 in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be fair
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> 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, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress.
>> We
>> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
>> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
>> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
>>
>> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
>> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
>> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
>>
>> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan
>> to return here in a week or two.
>>
>> Pine
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>

-- 
*Salvador Alcántar*
*@salvador_alc*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-22 Thread Gnangarra

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 in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be fair

On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:

> 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, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We
> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
>
> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
>
> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan
> to return here in a week or two.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-22 Thread Pine W

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, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We
want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.

I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.

I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan
to return here in a week or two.

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

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

2016-08-22 Thread Gnangarra

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
ourselves without bringing others down.  WP succeeds by working together to
help everyone improve what they are doing.

The final outcome for Cascadia Wikimedians become a chapter should not be
dictated by numbers but the communities desires and those should not be
measured against what others have done, because each chapter is unique with
their own challenges, their own cultures, their own needs and a thousand
others factors.  The only measure should be trust and an assumption of good
faith, hurdles only measure how high someone can jump not how high they
help others jump affiliates are there to help others achieve, Affcom is
there to help affiliates achieve that.

On 23 August 2016 at 10:37, Pine W  wrote:

> 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 affiliate-elected WMF board seats, and the right to
> send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference unlike the 1 delegate
> allowed per user group. With the privelidges should come some
> responsibilities, like meeting the criteria for chapter or thematic org
> status on an ongoing basis.
>
> As an organization that may want to become a chapter someday, Cascadia
> Wikimedians needs clarity and specificity about the criteria for chapter
> status. I ask AffCom to keep this in mind as it continues to consider and
> develop the criteria for chapter and thematic org status.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-22 Thread Pine W

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 affiliate-elected WMF board seats, and the right to
send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference unlike the 1 delegate
allowed per user group. With the privelidges should come some
responsibilities, like meeting the criteria for chapter or thematic org
status on an ongoing basis.

As an organization that may want to become a chapter someday, Cascadia
Wikimedians needs clarity and specificity about the criteria for chapter
status. I ask AffCom to keep this in mind as it continues to consider and
develop the criteria for chapter and thematic org status.

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

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

2016-08-22 Thread Brill Lyle

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 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 to
> assist user groups to expand...
> 
> I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates
> could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others
> into submission.
> 
> I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own
> path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates
> than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees
> or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or
> more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference.
> Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers
> 
> On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, 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 put on the path to
>>> meeting standards or losing their status.
>> 
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
>> The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
>> 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
>> 
>> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
>> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
>> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
>> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>> 
>> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
>> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
>> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
>> towards.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Chris Keating
>> User:The Land
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-22 Thread Gnangarra

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
created something great, something beyond what had every been done before,
it brought together and nurtured the differences it grew from those
beginnings not because of numbers.  So why change what makes us great, why
put numbers in place of everything else why even try to balance numbers
with what really matters because its what matters that important its what
matters is our goal.

We are because someone once imagined a world where the sum of all knowledge
could shared freely, not because someone once imagined a number and made
everyone else reach that number


On 23 August 2016 at 01:23, James Heilman > wrote:

> I see it a bit both ways. I would hope that the designation "chapter" and
> "user group" reflect at least something about the capacity of the
> organization in question. And organizations change over time so why should
> not their designation? I also agree that not all that matters can be
> measured / quantified. We still need to do what matters even if a nice
> little number cannot be attached to it. The question is how do we balance
> these two.
>
> Jaes
>
>
On 23 August 2016 at 08:13, 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 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 to
> assist user groups to expand...
>
> I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates
> could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others
> into submission.
>
> I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own
> path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates
> than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees
> or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or
> more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference.
> Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, 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 put on the path to
>> > meeting standards or losing their status.
>> >
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/
>> Eligibility_Criteria
>>
>> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
>> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
>> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity
>> in
>> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>>
>> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
>> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
>> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
>> towards.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris Keating
>> User:The Land
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>
>


-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-22 Thread Gnangarra

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 of chapters, it also has a,b,c to
assist user groups to expand...

I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates
could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others
into submission.

I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own
path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates
than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees
or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or
more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference.
Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers

On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, 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 put on the path to
> > meeting standards or losing their status.
> >
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
> 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
>
> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>
> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
> towards.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Keating
> User:The Land
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-22 Thread Chris Keating

> 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 this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Eligibility_Criteria

That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.

In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
towards.

Regards,

Chris Keating
User:The Land
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-22 Thread Pine W

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 WMF was
thinking along similar lines when it first created the concept of user
groups: that user groups would be easy to set up and have more flexible
configurations.

Why shouldn't a chapter which ceases to meet the admissions criteria for
chapter status be given an opportunity to improve, and if after a certain
period of time the chapter still falls below the criteria, the chapter be
changed to user group status?

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

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

2016-08-22 Thread Carlos M. Colina

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 chapters that have had issues in the past. But since
this is a more radical change, a better defined strategy is needed. And
we're working on it, based on our experience so far, not just as AffCom
members but with the experience acquired as members of different
affiliates. Suggestions and all valuable input is always welcome, too :-)

Thanks!

El 22/08/2016 a las 08:50 a.m., Brill Lyle escribió:

Within this context, if as Pine mentions, an especially strong community
organizer leaves the chapter, or if there is a huge shift in leadership,
the chapter could go through a lot of growing pains, good or bad.

How exactly does the Affiliates committee support this issue? What specific
support is available to chapters who are transitioning or having problems?

It seems like renaming something from X to Y is not doing much to provide
solutions.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Pine W wrote:

How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
a chapter as a user group?

I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached
to
already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
existing
chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter
status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
activity
in Wikimedia.

Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or
if an
especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
which
now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
this
"truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it
would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
its
levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
than
allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
responsibilities and expectations.

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

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

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

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

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

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
___

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

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

2016-08-22 Thread Carlos M. Colina


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 simpler
criteria.

I suspect these criteria, which are a good baseline, can be refined in
consultation with existing chapters and the broader community.


That is the idea behind the consultation, to refine it as much as 
possible with valuable input from everyone


My biggest concern is that "event" is undefined, and could include meetups
of only a few people, mostly regulars, with nn/little impact. That would
render this criteria useless, or worse encourage wasted effort to tick the
affcom criteria boxes.
I totally agree. Meeting for coffee, albeit cool, should be followed by 
activities or planning of activities that result in something valuable 
for the movement.


And if the activity levels are only maintained in order to obtain chapter
status, they will quickly reduce activity levels after chapter status is
granted unless there is a funded plan to maintain and grow the chapter
after affcom has given the group the nod.

On 22 Aug 2016 03:22, "Ben Creasy"  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 put on the path to
meeting standards or losing their status.

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

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

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


What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?

One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
apply,
which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
set of criteria.

As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
four of
the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
one
or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
clearly
defined.


How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
a chapter as a user group?

I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege

attached

to
already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
existing
chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters.

Chapter

status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
activity
in Wikimedia.

Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office,

or

if an
especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
which
now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
this
"truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and

it

would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
its
levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
than
allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
responsibilities and expectations.

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


___
Wikimedia-l

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

2016-08-22 Thread Carlos M. Colina

Pine,

El 22/08/2016 a las 08:40 p.m., Pine W escribió:

Carlos,

I think we need to distinguish the effort from the staff, from the 
capacity and accomplishments of the organization. For example, here in 
Cascadia, a very small number of people do quite a lot of work related 
to the Wikimedia mission. That does not make us a chapter. Valiant 
efforts by people working with limited resources are commendable, but 
that doesn't mean that an organization has high capacity or is highly 
successful.

Excuse me, but not all chapters can partner with the Guggenheim Museums, 
NASA or the MIT.  Success is related to the resources available and 
you're ignoring that.

It is true that every organization's situation is different, but if 
we're going to distinguish chapters from user groups, we need to have 
a meaningful, transparent, fair, objective, and easily understood way 
of making that distinction. It is possible to build some flexibility 
into the criteria for chapter status while also meeting these other 
needs, as I have already discussed.
Chapters have a geographic scope different from UGs and ThOrgs. I 
thought that distinction was clear.

Another option would be to eliminate the distinction, and call every 
group a chapter. While that is possible to do, the WMF Board would 
want to think about that very carefully.

Pine

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X) 
> wrote:

Hi Pine,

You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff
at a hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn
South Sudan is way bigger than those working for a state-of-the
art hospital in Portland, Zurich or Singapore, so you think they
shouldn't be considered "good hospitals" or not even "hospitals"
because they don't meet the quantitative and set on stone criteria
you suggest?

I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the
least. Every chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely
quantitative would be unfair and damaging to the movement and the
efforts of many wikimedians who cannot contribute in the ideal
conditions, yet they go the extra mile where others living in a
paradise wouldn't do that.

*hat on*

Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the
community to refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet.
But that's the general idea and the AffCom is there to assist as
much as possible to those groups who wish to meet the criteria.

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Pine W" >
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" >, "Wikimedia Movement
Affiliates discussion list" >
Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions"
>
Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
thematic organisation criteria
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM

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 months to rise to the occasion. If chapters still do not
meet the new criteria after that time, it seems to me that they
should be re-classified as user groups until they re-apply for
chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new criteria.

Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there
needs to be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the
definition of "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is
effectively at the discretion of the Affiliations Committee. To
use an analogy: a hospital that is providing reasonably good care
for its patients would be considered a good hospital whether it is
in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that lacks
essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and
has suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled
hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.

To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school
diplomas in the United States vary so widely that by itself a high
school diploma is a nearly useless credential without knowing
which high school granted a particular diploma. It seems to me
that we should avoid this kind of ambiguity in the Wikimedia
community.

While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be
deemed to meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a
chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or

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

2016-08-22 Thread Pine W

Carlos,

I think we need to distinguish the effort from the staff, from the capacity
and accomplishments of the organization. For example, here in Cascadia, a
very small number of people do quite a lot of work related to the Wikimedia
mission. That does not make us a chapter. Valiant efforts by people working
with limited resources are commendable, but that doesn't mean that an
organization has high capacity or is highly successful.

It is true that every organization's situation is different, but if we're
going to distinguish chapters from user groups, we need to have a
meaningful, transparent, fair, objective, and easily understood way of
making that distinction. It is possible to build some flexibility into the
criteria for chapter status while also meeting these other needs, as I have
already discussed.

Another option would be to eliminate the distinction, and call every group
a chapter. While that is possible to do, the WMF Board would want to think
about that very carefully.

Pine

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X) <
ma...@wikimedia.org.ve> wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff at a
> hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn South Sudan is
> way bigger than those working for a state-of-the art hospital in Portland,
> Zurich or Singapore, so you think they shouldn't be considered "good
> hospitals" or not even "hospitals" because they don't meet the quantitative
> and set on stone criteria you suggest?
>
> I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the least. Every
> chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely quantitative would be
> unfair and damaging to the movement and the efforts of many wikimedians who
> cannot contribute in the ideal conditions, yet they go the extra mile where
> others living in a paradise wouldn't do that.
>
> *hat on*
>
> Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the community to
> refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet. But that's the general
> idea and the AffCom is there to assist as much as possible to those groups
> who wish to meet the criteria.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Pine W" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" ,
> "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" 
> Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
> thematic organisation criteria
> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
>
> 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 months to rise to the
> occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
> it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
> re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
> criteria.
>
> Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
> be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
> "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
> the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
> reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
> lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
> suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
> To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
> subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
> the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
> nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
> particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
> ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
>
> While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
> meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
> met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
> criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
> quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
> chapters.
>
> I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
> included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
> chapters and thematic organizations.
>
> 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

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

2016-08-22 Thread James Heilman

I see it a bit both ways. I would hope that the designation "chapter" and
"user group" reflect at least something about the capacity of the
organization in question. And organizations change over time so why should
not their designation? I also agree that not all that matters can be
measured / quantified. We still need to do what matters even if a nice
little number cannot be attached to it. The question is how do we balance
these two.

Jaes

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X) <
ma...@wikimedia.org.ve> wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff at a
> hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn South Sudan is
> way bigger than those working for a state-of-the art hospital in Portland,
> Zurich or Singapore, so you think they shouldn't be considered "good
> hospitals" or not even "hospitals" because they don't meet the quantitative
> and set on stone criteria you suggest?
>
> I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the least. Every
> chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely quantitative would be
> unfair and damaging to the movement and the efforts of many wikimedians who
> cannot contribute in the ideal conditions, yet they go the extra mile where
> others living in a paradise wouldn't do that.
>
> *hat on*
>
> Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the community to
> refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet. But that's the general
> idea and the AffCom is there to assist as much as possible to those groups
> who wish to meet the criteria.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Pine W" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" ,
> "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" 
> Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
> thematic organisation criteria
> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
>
> 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 months to rise to the
> occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
> it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
> re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
> criteria.
>
> Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
> be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
> "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
> the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
> reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
> lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
> suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
> To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
> subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
> the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
> nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
> particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
> ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
>
> While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
> meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
> met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
> criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
> quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
> chapters.
>
> I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
> included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
> chapters and thematic organizations.
>
> 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 there is likely to be less controversy about
>
> the status of affiliates.
>
>
>
>
> The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
> context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
> cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the
> situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the
> same of Venezuela, where people

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

2016-08-22 Thread Carlos Colina (Maor_X)

Hello Ben,

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

Sent from my HTC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-08-21 Thread John Mark Vandenberg

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 refined in
consultation with existing chapters and the broader community.

My biggest concern is that "event" is undefined, and could include meetups
of only a few people, mostly regulars, with nn/little impact. That would
render this criteria useless, or worse encourage wasted effort to tick the
affcom criteria boxes.

And if the activity levels are only maintained in order to obtain chapter
status, they will quickly reduce activity levels after chapter status is
granted unless there is a funded plan to maintain and grow the chapter
after affcom has given the group the nod.

On 22 Aug 2016 03:22, "Ben Creasy"  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 put on the path to
> meeting standards or losing their status.
>
> What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high
> standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee
> and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters
> have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation
> period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.
>
> I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters
> becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and
> create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's
> the current process?
>
> On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W"  wrote:
>
> > > What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
> >
> > One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
> > should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
> > harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
> > apply,
> > which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
> > inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
> > set of criteria.
> >
> > As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
> > flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> > four of
> > the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
> > one
> > or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
> > clearly
> > defined.
> >
> > > How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> > > a chapter as a user group?
> >
> > I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege
> attached
> > to
> > already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
> > existing
> > chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters.
> Chapter
> > status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
> > activity
> > in Wikimedia.
> >
> > Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
> > are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office,
> or
> > if an
> > especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
> > happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
> > decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
> > which
> > now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
> > categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
> > this
> > "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and
> it
> > would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
> > its
> > levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
> > than
> > allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
> > responsibilities and expectations.
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
New

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

2016-08-21 Thread Ben Creasy

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-08-20 Thread Pine W

> What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?

One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
apply,
which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
set of criteria.

As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
four of
the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
one
or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
clearly
defined.

> How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> a chapter as a user group?

I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached
to
already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
existing
chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter
status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
activity
in Wikimedia.

Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or
if an
especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
which
now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
this
"truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it
would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return its
levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
than
allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
responsibilities and expectations.

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

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

2016-08-20 Thread Nathan

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 months to rise to the
> occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
> it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
> re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
> criteria.
>
> Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
> be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
> "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
> the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
> reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
> lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
> suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
> To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
> subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
> the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
> nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
> particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
> ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
>
> While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
> meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
> met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
> criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
> quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
> chapters.
>
> I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
> included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
> chapters and thematic organizations.
>
> Pine
>


What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine? How
is the Wikimedia movement damaged by having chapters which may not
universally meet precise quantitative measurements of activity or other
criteria? How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
a chapter as a user group?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

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

2016-08-20 Thread Carlos M. Colina


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 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 
wrote:


Dear all,

On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
out three new criteria:

1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
on Wikimedia projects.

In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]

Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
to the criteria before they are finalized.

Thank you,
M.

1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
Chapter_Summary_Matrix
2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

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

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
___
Affiliates mailing list
affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates






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

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

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia 
Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son 
marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación 
Wikimedia, Inc., una

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

2016-08-20 Thread Carlos M. Colina


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 there is likely to be less controversy about
the status of affiliates.


The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the 
context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We 
cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the 
situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the 
same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a 
loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery 
operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across 
the country except for the capital.


If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another 
story.


On Aug 19, 2016 05:36, "Carlos M. Colina"  wrote:


Dear all,

On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
out three new criteria:

1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
on Wikimedia projects.

In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]

Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
to the criteria before they are finalized.

Thank you,
M.

1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
Chapter_Summary_Matrix
2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve

Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

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

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
___
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
New messages to:

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

2016-08-20 Thread Jonathan Cardy

Just one small point, "and to conduct programs and events at least once every 
two months" reads like a rule set by Americans who deliberately or otherwise 
don't want too much emphasis on the education program.

Most western countries have remuneration packages that put more emphasis  on 
holiday time than the USA, and in some countries there is a month of the year 
when only an expat would try to organise things. In such countries the two 
month rule imposes an unnatural focus on the fortnights adjacent to the 
shutdown.

I suspect any chapter that took a strategy of mostly focussing events on the 
education sector would also have difficulties melding that two month limitation 
with the academic year.

There is also the issue that not all events are of equal value to the movement, 
and I say that a one of the de facto hosts of the London meetup ( If we were a 
chapter Wikimedia London would have no problem with that particular  rule as 
our meetups are monthly).

Regards

WereSpielChequers 

> On 20 Aug 2016, at 13:00, wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> 
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic
>  organisation criteria (Pine W)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:05:37 -0700
> From: 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...@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

2016-08-19 Thread Brill Lyle

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 people contributing their T

Both Lane and I are part of Wikimedia NYC, a very active chapter that
somehow (I believe) manages to meet these criteria amidst almost
exponential growth of activities. The administrative burden on both our
leadership and membership is heavy, and I am grateful for everyone's pitch
in / can do approach and willingness to contribute.

And no, the answer is not to do less events and have less support to
institutional partners and various initiatives. That's not practical or
good for anyone.

But it brings to mind a recent trip I made where I visited the Wikimedia
Deutschland offices. Where there was a whole room (!) of 6 fully set up
computers with I am assuming the same number of staff for Event planning
alone -- all which I assume are paid positions. That really made me pause
in shock. And feel like a bit of an idiot that our chapter does so much
without that type of structural support.

So while I understand the idea of these criteria, to have the balance beam
heavily weighted on requirements without attendant support is not a
workable model.

- Erika
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC -- but not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Romaine Wiki 
wrote:

> 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 the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be
> followed.
>
> It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the results.
> Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and
> newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter for
> collaborations with various partner organisations.
>
> Romaine
>
> 2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry :
>
> > 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 <
> ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
> >> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria,
> which we
> >> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
> >> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
> >> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
> >> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have
> set
> >> out three new criteria:
> >>
> >>1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> >>expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
> events; to
> >>balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous
> activity; and
> >>to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
> >>2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> >>expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
> and
> >>events before executing them; to measure the results of programs,
> projects,
> >>and events against those targets; and to report on those results to
> the
> >>Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
> >>3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> >>expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups
> and
> >>organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
> institutions,
> >>and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve
> content
> >>on Wikimedia projects.
> >>
> >> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
> >> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
> Affiliations
> >> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
> >> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations
> will
> >> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
> >> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and
> limitations of
> >> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
> >>
> >> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
> >> will be opportunities to share

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

2016-08-19 Thread Pine W

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 affiliates.

I would also suggest that existing chapters should be evaluated routinely,
perhaps in alternate years, to verify that they meet the criteria. If they
don't, they can be put on probation for 6 months, and if after that time
they still fall below the new standards, then they will be demoted to user
group status and can re-apply for chapter status after a year. This would
be a way to level the playing field between existing chapters, and user
groups who wish to be chapters.

Thanks,

Pine

On Aug 19, 2016 05:36, "Carlos M. Colina"  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
> out three new criteria:
>
>1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
>balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
>to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
>events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
>and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
>Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
>organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
>and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
>on Wikimedia projects.
>
> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>
> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>
> Thank you,
> M.
>
> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Chapter_Summary_Matrix
> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> , Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados  son
> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
> Wikimedia, Inc. , una organización
> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
> propietarios.
>
> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
> ___
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:

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

2016-08-19 Thread Romaine Wiki

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 the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be
followed.

It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the results.
Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and
newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter for
collaborations with various partner organisations.

Romaine

2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry :

> 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 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
>> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
>> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
>> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
>> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
>> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
>> out three new criteria:
>>
>>1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; 
>> to
>>balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; 
>> and
>>to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>>2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
>>events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, 
>> projects,
>>and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
>>Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>>3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
>>organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government 
>> institutions,
>>and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve 
>> content
>>on Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
>> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
>> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
>> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
>> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
>> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
>> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>>
>> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
>> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
>> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
>> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
>> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
>> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
>> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> M.
>>
>> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt
>> er_Summary_Matrix
>> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema
>> tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
>> --
>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
>> Carlos M. Colina
>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
>> 
>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>> Twitter: @maor_x
>>
>> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
>> , Wikipedia,
>> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
>> relacionados  son
>> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
>> Wikimedia, Inc. , una organización
>> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
>> propietarios.
>>
>> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
>> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>> ___
>> Affiliates mailing list
>> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>

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

2016-08-19 Thread Lane Rasberry

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 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
> out three new criteria:
>
>1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
>balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
>to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
>events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
>and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
>Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
>organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
>and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
>on Wikimedia projects.
>
> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>
> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>
> Thank you,
> M.
>
> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Chapter_Summary_Matrix
> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> , Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados  son
> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
> Wikimedia, Inc. , una organización
> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
> propietarios.
>
> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>


-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

42 matches

Mail list logo