Hi all,
I am hoping that we hear back from Affcom about Peaceray's point.
I am planning to take Luis up on his suggestion to have a discussion
on Meta, in which I will discuss the various delays and
communications/documentaion issues that seem to plague our attempts to
make ourselves impactful and get the approvals to enable us to make
progress.
My work on the budget this week has been delayed by the need to spend
many hours dealing with car issues, plus my working a little overtime
at paid work. Hopefully I will have a chance to work on the budget
next week.
Pine
On Feb 20, 2015 10:22 AM, "Raymond Leonard"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Affiliations Committee mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
