On 24 August 2016 at 22:50, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote:

> This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says:
>         "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately 
> according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)"
> There's no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in this 
> document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group agreements, 
> but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this process 
> document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I won't go 
> into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it fairer to all 
> parties.

I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in
touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process,
and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at
actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before
entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough
(from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you
can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the
line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard
deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other
end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think
it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities
often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.




NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

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