Hi,

What surprized me is the bad faith you assumed regarding AffCom and BoT
when during the past weeks I believe we've shown through actions, and not
talks, that we did listen to the feedback and acted on it. The discussion
on wikimedia-l have been really good to read for a few weeks and I would
love it to keep it that way. Disagreeing is a good thing, when it is done
in a manner that is actually open for a discussion. We will not always be
right, and having people disagreeing and explaining why we might be wrong
is the best way to make sure we make as little wrong decisions as possible.

And I totally agree we need to assume good faith and trust each other, that
is key in the coming strategy process.

And that's also why I'm surprized because setting up those temporaly
criterias is done so that for the next few month AffCom will be able to
work with affiliates to contribute to the strategy process.

Of course for native english speaking / larger chapters, it might not be a
bigh deal. But we also have dozens of smaller organizations that do not
dare be part of this discussion. We also need their opinions, their views,
to know about their needs and expectations. That is where AffCom will be
super useful for the movement.

Again, we have shared that publicly during Wikimania, and I am happy to do
that here to, but our rmain goal for this year is to make sure we finally
have a comprehensive movement strategy. That is where our focus is. So
temporary decisions, like this one, are made so that we focus discussing
about the thing that will shape the movement for years.

I am happy to discuss this here, all I ask is please to assume good faith
and read into the context I'm trying to provide you with.

Have a great day,

Christophe



On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could
> be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at
> my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we
> dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of
> the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont
> normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
>
> What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates
> to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same
> response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the
> loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe
> groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had
> with affcom.
>
> All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of
> good faith with more rules, more  bureaucracy more power cabals.  we make
> rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level
> of distrust and badt faith .  As a group we need to get back to trust and
> assuming good faith.
>
> Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
> criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down
> to make things better because we  just happen to find it easy to make that
> choice
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gnangarra,
> >
> > This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
> >
> > As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can
> > keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
> only
> > about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
> interesting
> > and important, topic.
> >
> > As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to
> > come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
> it
> > is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we
> > make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations
> > to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will
> > come.
> >
> > But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
> consultation
> > about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the
> > strategy.
> >
> > That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought
> > was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support
> > affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live
> by
> > their engagements.
> >
> > One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
> >
> > As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or
> > white.
> >
> > Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
> happen
> > on a much larger topic that includes them.
> > AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many
> > duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get
> > recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties
> and
> > sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
> >
> > Happy to further that discussion,
> >
> > Have a all great day
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just
> > > like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
> > >
> > > sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after
> > all
> > > of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was
> > > heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now
> > > Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish
> them
> > >
> > > On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A <salvador1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to
> > > > quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to
> > some
> > > > consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to
> be
> > > > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
> > > >
> > > > Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized
> affiliates
> > to
> > > > meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
> > > unfair
> > > > to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg
> and
> > > > Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
> > > among
> > > > those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg
> > and
> > > > Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep
> > affiliate
> > > > status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to
> avoid
> > > to
> > > > get them dormant.
> > > >
> > > > This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF
> > staff
> > > > makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you
> > eligible
> > > > to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
> > > > requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every
> > case
> > > > if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > *Possible questions:*
> > > >
> > > > *Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my
> > > > recognition as chapter?*
> > > >
> > > > *A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the
> > > > situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
> > > >
> > > > *Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
> > > >
> > > > *A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for
> AffCom,
> > > WMF
> > > > or other affiliates help if is needed.
> > > >
> > > > *Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without
> > > > activity and nothing had happened so far.*
> > > >
> > > > *A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it,
> > I'm
> > > > sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
> > > >
> > > > Regards!
> > > >
> > > > 2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what
> you
> > > > > want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others,
> > accept
> > > > > that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges
> we
> > > all
> > > > > face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always
> > be
> > > > fair
> > > > >
> > > > > On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Gnangarra,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see
> things
> > > > >> differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision.
> > > > >> Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but
> > > > >> organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real
> > laws,
> > > > >> real
> > > > >> people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder
> > > progress.
> > > > >> We
> > > > >> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that
> effectively
> > > > >> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly
> > complicated
> > > > >> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are
> involved
> > in
> > > > >> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
> > > > >> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects,
> but I
> > > > plan
> > > > >> to return here in a week or two.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Pine
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > > >> i/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>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > GN.
> > > > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Affiliates mailing list
> > > > > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Salvador Alcántar*
> > > > *@salvador_alc*
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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