Kirill & all, This proves my point. The WMF Board stated that it seeks an approval requirement that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years” was made at a retreat that occurred November 22 - 23, 2013. Yet fifteen months later, where is this codified in the Requirements, Guidelines, & Creation guides for Chapters, Thematic organisations, or User groups? The nearest that I can find is at Wikimedia usergroups/Requirements <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200>, where it states “Two years of activities prior to applying” as a requirement for Chapters & Thematic organisations. Two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The discrepancy makes it feel like the goal posts are being moved on us.
The Affiliations Committee should rightfully expect transparency & promptness from its present and future affiliates. We are asking that the Affiliations Committee treat us with the same transparency & promptness. Yours, Peaceray On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Peaceray, > > I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user groups. > CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter because it > was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is skittish about > new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all new groups as > user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user group* before > being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are requirements that > have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1]. > > Cheers, > Kirill > > [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Pine & all, >> >> I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially >> considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word >> that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider >> that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements >> (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic >> organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. >> Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements: >> >> >> - *Focus:* Geographic >> - *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes >> - *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes >> (signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo >> - *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes >> - *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:* Yes >> - *Allows new members:* Yes >> - *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes >> - *Legally incorporated:* In progress >> - *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has >> bylaws >> - *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October 2011, >> mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January >> 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events >> - *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF >> responsibility >> - *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board >> formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct) >> - *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:* >> Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at >> appropriate intervals >> >> I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we >> have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently >> got the go ahead. >> >> Alex, >> >> I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are >> working. I can see at >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that >> 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. >> (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under >> Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of >> October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There >> have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out >> its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish >> about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user >> group. >> >> However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and >> flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I >> know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely >> manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 >> weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking >> deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to >> become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a >> back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush >> headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider >> how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725> >> begins with "This page is outdated ..." >> >> So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate >> concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like >> another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can >> just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member >> recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia >> projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that >> while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really >> perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please >> help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that. >> >> Yours, >> Peaceray >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Peaceray, >>> >>> I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the >>> picture, yes. >>> >>> One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly >>> high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our >>> group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF >>> Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire >>> campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations >>> that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed >>> with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand >>> why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to >>> this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if >>> the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF >>> departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis >>> Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally >>> I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being >>> expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems >>> suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who >>> is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline >>> processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let >>> me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis. >>> >>> Pine >>> >>> Pine >>> >>> *This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock >>> of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water >>> we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in >>> which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad >>> fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not >>> know.* >>> >>> *—Catherine Munro* >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" >>>> table in >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibility >>>> probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us. >>>> >>>> To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the >>>> capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that >>>> the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 >>>> respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both >>>> Chapters & Thematic organizations. >>>> >>>> My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility >>>> with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to >>>> implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." >>>> We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think >>>> our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, >>>> & then to engage them. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Peaceray >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Cascadians, >>>>> >>>>> I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this >>>>> afternoon. >>>>> >>>>> Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority >>>>> should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and >>>>> that >>>>> we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid >>>>> positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to >>>>> develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be >>>>> significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer >>>>> network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and >>>>> public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be >>>>> able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low >>>>> intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. >>>>> Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer >>>>> network. >>>>> >>>>> We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on >>>>> development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on >>>>> redrafting >>>>> the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and >>>>> have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I >>>>> have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the >>>>> development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a >>>>> learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first >>>>> discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have >>>>> finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and >>>>> funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support. >>>>> >>>>> I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments >>>>> or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any >>>>> questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this >>>>> list so that others can benefit from the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Pine >>>>> >>>>> *This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock >>>>> of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water >>>>> we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in >>>>> which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad >>>>> fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do >>>>> not >>>>> know.* >>>>> >>>>> *—Catherine Munro* >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
