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 &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: to fair plan -- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: all some to and affiliate staff eligible case I'm accept be laws, complicated in mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;chenner(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: only interesting it consultation by happen and them be affiliates and avoid AffCom, you we things effectively involved but I mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, -- 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a discussion. I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT fostering community. To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to take the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal approach to engagement on any level. I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the dismissive responses by those who seem to be on the committee. If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach seems a real misstep. - Erika 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. 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. 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. 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 wrote: only interesting it organizations will consultation thought support live by happen and just after all was now them wrote: to some to be affiliates to and ThOrg and affiliate avoid staff eligible every case AffCom, without it, I'm you accept you challenges we always be things vision. laws, effectively complicated involved in but I ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l bscribe> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, bscribe> , i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: to fair plan -- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>