Hi Carlos,

As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also
apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result
of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the
occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
criteria.

Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
"chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.

To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.

While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
chapters.

I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
chapters and thematic organizations.

Pine


El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> In general, I like the new criteria.
>
> I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
> there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
> these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
> the status of affiliates.
>

The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the situation
of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of
Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of
bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or
where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country
except for the capital.

If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
story.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to