it is the will of the board to make it easy to start a recognised body to do
work and it is totally acceptable if these bodies also die after having
fulfilled their purpose - or grow and develop into other affiliation models. So
the criterium for us is easy entry.
Anyway the user groups have limited liability and responsibilities, access to
ressources is controlled on a case by case basis eg. through the Grant Avisory
Committee and every year user groups must be renewed, for this we want so see a
simple report. So every ug with the minimum of activity - a report written,
having responded to our follow-up e-mail - is renewed.
sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario Valdelli
> I personally think that the main concern, in this proliferation of
> groups, is an lack of the implementation of a "good governance".
> A user group is like a body, it can born, can develop and can die.
> At the moment there is an unclear guideline about the monitoring and the
> development of these groups: they can only born.
> Basically the affiliation committee creates these entities, but don't
> monitor them and don't evaluate to retire (or the best would be to
> freeze) some old entities when they become essentially inactive or silent.
> In this case the balance would be compensated and the proliferation of
> these groups would have a sense.
> Kind regards
> On 18.10.2015 16:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> > The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) has been preparing for the increased
> > momentum since the user group model was implemented, and it follows a
> > pattern that we’ve been seeing over the past couple of years. In 2013, we
> > approved 10 user groups, last year we approved 19, and so far this year we
> > have approved around 20. That number will likely increase next year. This
> > growing momentum is why we have continued to tweak the approval process to
> > be faster and able to handle the growing momentum. So, from our
> > perspective, this is something we have been preparing for from the start,
> > and not a surprise.
> > Personally, I think further complicating affiliate classifications is a bad
> > idea. “Small” and “larger” are very culturally relative, varies across the
> > models (there are user groups “larger” than chapters), changes over time,
> > and implies that “large” affiliates do work “small” affiliates cannot, when
> > we continue to see that is in fact not the case at all. The current
> > criteria for WMCON is active and inactive, which seems far more
> > appropriate. Additionally, dividing them will not save much money, if any,
> > as there would still presumably be a gathering for the “small” affiliates.
> > I agree with Leigh and others that affiliates should receive more support,
> > but I do not think those efforts will be served well by further dividing
> > them.
> > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: