Hi Ilario, 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. /Manuel -- sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com>: > > 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. > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups > > 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 > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
