Kirill & all,
This proves my point. The WMF Board stated that it seeks an approval
requirement that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter
or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily
incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years” was made at a
retreat that occurred November 22 - 23, 2013. Yet fifteen months later,
where is this codified in the Requirements, Guidelines, & Creation guides
for Chapters, Thematic organisations, or User groups? The nearest that
I can find is at Wikimedia usergroups/Requirements
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200>,
where it states “Two years of activities prior to applying” as a
requirement for Chapters & Thematic organisations. Two years of
activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia
user group for two years. The discrepancy makes it feel like the goal posts
are being moved on us.
The Affiliations Committee should rightfully expect transparency &
promptness from its present and future affiliates. We are asking that the
Affiliations Committee treat us with the same transparency & promptness.
Yours,
Peaceray
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin <
kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user
groups. CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter
because it was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is
skittish about new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all
new groups as user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user
group* before being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are
requirements that have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1].
Cheers,
Kirill
[1]
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard <
raymond.f.leonard.jr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Pine & all,
>
> I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process,
> especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got
> the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient.
> Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six
> requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic
> organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations.
> Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements:
>
>
> - *Focus:* Geographic
> - *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
> - *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes
> (signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo
> - *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes
> - *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:*
> Yes
> - *Allows new members:* Yes
> - *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
> - *Legally incorporated:* In progress
> - *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has
> bylaws
> - *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October
> 2011, mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since
> January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events
> - *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF
> responsibility
> - *Governing board elected by members, including new members:*
> Board formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct)
> - *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:*
> Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at
> appropriate intervals
>
> I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that
> we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just
> recently got the go ahead.
>
> Alex,
>
> I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are
> working. I can see at
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318
> that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports.
> (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under
> Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of
> October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There
> have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out
> its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish
> about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user
> group.
>
> However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple
> and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple.
> I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely
> manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4
> weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking
> deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to
> become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a
> back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush
> headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider
> how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide
>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725>
> begins with "This page is outdated ..."
>
> So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate
> concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like
> another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can
> just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member
> recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia
> projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that
> while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really
> perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please
> help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that.
>
> Yours,
> Peaceray
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Peaceray,
>>
>> I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of
>> the picture, yes.
>>
>> One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly
>> high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our
>> group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF
>> Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire
>> campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations
>> that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed
>> with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand
>> why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to
>> this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if
>> the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF
>> departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis
>> Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally
>> I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being
>> expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems
>> suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who
>> is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline
>> processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let
>> me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>> Pine
>>
>> *This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep
>> rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear
>> water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile
>> earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And
>> the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much
>> we do not know. *
>>
>> *—Catherine Munro *
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard <
>> raymond.f.leonard.jr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation
>>> models" table in
>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibil…
>>> probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us.
>>>
>>> To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and
>>> the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable
state
>>> that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are
3
>>> & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20
respectively for
>>> both Chapters & Thematic organizations.
>>>
>>> My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build
>>> credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board
>>> & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance
Wikimedia
>>> projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do
>>> this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join
>>> CWUG as members, & then to engage them.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Peaceray
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Cascadians,
>>>>
>>>> I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this
>>>> afternoon.
>>>>
>>>> Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority
>>>> should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and
that
>>>> we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid
>>>> positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to
>>>> develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be
>>>> significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer
>>>> network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and
>>>> public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be
>>>> able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low
>>>> intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way.
>>>> Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our
volunteer
>>>> network.
>>>>
>>>> We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on
>>>> development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on
redrafting
>>>> the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week,
and
>>>> have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I
>>>> have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the
>>>> development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a
>>>> learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first
>>>> discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex
have
>>>> finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and
>>>> funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support.
>>>>
>>>> I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any
>>>> comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to
>>>> direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex,
>>>> preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Pine
>>>>
>>>> *This is an Encyclopedia* <https://www.wikipedia.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep
>>>> rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The
clear
>>>> water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile
>>>> earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,
And
>>>> the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how
much
>>>> we do not know. *
>>>>
>>>> *—Catherine Munro *
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
>>>> Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
>> Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
> Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
Wikimedia-Cascadia(a)lists.wikimedia.org