Greg, Thank you for the update. One of the quirks with the list.wikimedia.org is I did not receive your email until today.
Thanks, Peaceray On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Gregory Varnum <[email protected]> wrote: > Peaceray, > > I am not sure if you saw my response to Pine, but some additional info. > > We are aware of the contents of the board's letter. The table accurately > reflects the criteria that AffCom reviews before considering a potential > chapter, and the board is aware of that. As such, it will not be changed at > this time. It is a clarification based on AffCom's conversations with the > BoT and is accurate. It is very common for these types of refinements to be > made. Wikimedia Belgium is an example of why this clarification was made. > Since the WUG model was not available when Belgium began, it did not make > sense to ask them to become a WUG first. However, in almost all other > cases, doing those two years of activities as a WUG is preferred and > recommended - and that is communicated to applicants - as it was with > Cascadia. If the group feels they meet the two year requirement and wish to > apply, we will not stop you. However, activities done prior to WUG > recognition are often - but not always - not at chapter-recognition level > quality. Sometimes those done after recognition are not quality enough > either. > > The requirement is written as such because we are more interested in two > years of quality programming than we are two years as a WUG - it just > happens to be that for most groups that will be done while they are a WUG. > That is why I am not sure that I agree with your assessment that they are > very different, in our assessment, in practical execution, they often are > linked. However, we reserve the right to provide the board with any unique > exceptions - as we did with Belgium. As Carlos has pointed out, the AffCom > recommends chapters for recognition to the BoT - we are not the final > recognition entity as is the case with WUGs. It does not appear to me that > Cascadia is one of those exceptions, but you are certainly welcome to > present otherwise and the committee will consider it. Do keep in mind that > activities done by people who eventually formed the group are different > from activities done by the group itself. > > All affiliate documentation is in the process of being redone. Once the > WUG documentation is completed, we will be updating Chapter and ThOrg > documentation. This will be made clearer in those updates. I do apologize > that these updates are not yet done, and we certainly agree it needs to be, > but as a volunteer group we have to triage our efforts. There are dozens > are groups considering becoming a WUG, and only a few actively looking at > becoming a chapter, so the WUG documentation and process has our focus > right now. Until those updates are done, you are welcome to ask for > clarification as you have done, but the recently updated documentation > accurately reflects what this committee reviews in applications. > > -greg aka varnent > Vice-Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Raymond Leonard < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Carlos, >> >> My apologies for not responding right away, but for some reason I did not >> receive this in my mailbox until this morning. >> >> You are not responding to the point we raised. Please see my emails of >> 2/19 & 2/20. >> >> The point is that there is a difference between what AffCom Wiki >> communicates to affiliates & potential affiliates & what is reality. >> >> Yes, at its retreat on November 22 - 23, 2013, the BoT instituted a >> 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. >> <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles>" >> This was first published three months later, here >> <http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes/2013-11-24&oldid=95803> >> . >> >> Yet a year after that, I could not find anything under the Affiliations >> Committee portal <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee> >> that reflected this requirement. Are you implying that potential affiliates >> need to go to BoT minutes to find their requirements rather than to >> AffCom's documentation? I think not, but AffCom failure to document the BoT >> requirement for at least a year is a problem. >> >> Even today, the Wikimedia user groups/Requirement >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200> >> lists a requirement of "Two years of activities prior to applying" for >> Chapters & Thematic organisations. As I stated in my 2/20 email, two >> years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a >> Wikimedia user group for two years. The Portland, OR & Seattle, WA meetups, >> components of CWUG, have been organizing activities for over three years, >> as opposed to when AffCom resolved to recognize Cascadia Wikimedians as a >> Wikimedia User Group last September. >> >> Inadequate & outdated documentation will only lead to disappointment & >> frustration for affiliates & potential affiliates who feel that they are be >> tripped up by esoteric rules & deadlines known only to AffCom. >> >> CWUG wants to show our due diligence by adhering to both requirements & >> timelines, but we need to know what is required of us, when it is required, >> & when we can expect responses. We ask for your help in this matter by >> clearly documenting requirements, timelines, & deadlines. The failure to >> clearly document the length of time required for a user group to become a >> chapter or a thematic organization is not the only issue. Please review the >> emails from both Pine & myself earlier in this thread. As Chair of the >> Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee, surely you can initiate some >> change in this regard. >> >> Yours, >> Peaceray >> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Carlos M. Colina <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Pine, >>> >>> I think it is easy to understand that, even in the event that the AffCom >>> recommends to the WMF Board the recognition of a certain group to become a >>> chapter, the WMF Board has made it clear that it will not accept a group >>> that has been recognized as a Wikimedia User Group for at least two years. >>> I honestly do not see why it is so hard to understand that the AffCom >>> guidelines have not changed and that simply, the WMF Board is the entity >>> who has the final word on chapterhood status. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Carlos >>> >>> El 01/03/2015 a las 09:07 a.m., Pine W escribió: >>> >>> 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]> 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]> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Affiliations Committee mailing >>> [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom >>> >>> >>> -- >>> "*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 <http://wikimedia.org.ve> >>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee >>> Phone: +972-52-4869915 >>> Twitter: @maor_x >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Affiliations Committee mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
