On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine? How
is the Wikimedia movement damaged by having chapters which may not
universally meet precise quantitative measurements of activity or other
criteria? How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
a chapter as a user group?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to