IMHO, the idea of the user groups is not to divide the community, the main goal 
is to create the opportunity for small communities to work in the same 
direction, learn with each other and have a framework to work together, 
learning from and sharing experiences.

The user group is an important step to move forward to a thematic organization 
or chapter based on the learnings and experiences acquired after some projects 
and activities. It can be a good opportunity to professionalize the community 
and avoid frustrated attempts to create a chapter or thematic organization with 
no previous experience.

For sure we will need more guidance and dedicated activities during the next 
conference in Berlin. Having a dedicated event, IMHO will not generate the same 
opportunity that we have to learn from chapters like WM UK, WM MX, WM DE and 
etc in an event like WMCON.

For me, the opportunity to see what active chapters are doing was crucial to 
organize here in Brazil 2 editions of WLE and our first edition of WLM.

I guess we are in the right direction and the types of grants available, 
including the new simple annual plan project, will generate excellent impacts 
to the movement during the next years.

Rodrigo Padula

Coordenador de Projetos

Grupo Wikimedia Brasileiro de Educação e Pesquisa

21 99326-0558

 ---- On Dom, 18 Out 2015 12:08:54 -0200 Gnangarra <> 
wrote ----

Any process that divides the community isnt good for the community, we

already seeing the effects of poor decisions being taken by groups and

individuals acting in isolation

On 18 October 2015 at 20:02, Leigh Thelmadatter <>


> Im not sure now is the right time to divide affiliates. Thematic

> organizations and user groups are still new and there is still a heavy

> preference towards chapters. User groups are not necessarily small, and

> chapters are not necessarily large.

> I hear what you are saying about resources being stretched thin. Wiki

> Learning was one of the first to get approved as a user group after years

> of trying, but we have not received any mentoring as of yet. Fortunately,

> we are already pretty well-organized and receive support from the Tec de

> Monterrey.

> Im worried that separating affiliates would marginalize groups that just

> now got some kind of recognition and voice.



> > Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:00:31 -0700

> > From:

> > To:;

> > CC:

> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

> >

> > It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. 

> > Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced

> > formations?

> >

> > Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the

> > budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched 

> > accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was

> > thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to 

> > affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us,

> with

> > interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due 

> our

> > increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate 

> > for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from 

> can

> > be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the 

> of

> > a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, 

> or

> > others?

> >

> > Pine

> > _______________________________________________

> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:


> >

> > Unsubscribe:,

> <>


> _______________________________________________

> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:



> Unsubscribe:,

> <>




President Wikimedia Australia


Photo Gallery:


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to