We are moving toward a process that involves 1-2 people primarily and then
a full vote by the committee (which right now procedurally takes one week).
From my perspective, the delays are often related to
confusion over the
process, or failure to actually initiate things with AffCom. We
have about
a dozen groups in discussion, but who have not yet made contact with
AffCom. Sometimes people are timid or confused about taking the first step
of saying "I (or we) are the contacts for this group and here is what we
would like to do." We are looking into that more and working on some
solutions. I think right now a lot of the problem is related to perceptions
over the process and doubts over the value of completing it (as simple as
it may be). Sometimes it has been a matter as simple as finalizing the
wording of the user group agreement, which gets better each time based on
the feedback and efforts to address the needs.
If the process had no checks or balances, a few groups would have already
been approved that would have been problematic and the desire has been to
avoid the need to retract recognition of a group. As we know - once
something is out there - it is very hard to pull back. We are trying to
find the right balance between providing the right resources and
motivations for becoming a user group - and prevent abuse of the process
which could then lower the perceived value of the user group model - and
potentially the Wikimedia brand. The discussion around the logo is one
example of trying to find that balance. The groups would like some equality
around usage of the trademarks, and the chapters/thorgs would like some
protection of the brand to not harm them when there are geographical
overlaps - and also not burden the user groups with the same
responsibilities of the chapters/thorgs in regards to media relations.
My personal hunch is that the more user groups that apply, the more we will
discover the hurdles and overcome them - which will improve the process
overall. I think what is most helpful is to ask for some patience while we
try to address concerns and figure out the quickest possible process - but
encourage as many interested groups to come forward as possible. It is
through those discussions that we are learning the most and best able to
find solutions. Really, my biggest request, would be for interested user
groups to contact us and officially ask to become a user group - the more -
the better in my humble opinion. Don't worry about the Meta pages or
whatever, we will help with that, just contact us (
affcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org) and get the process going.
We are also trying to improve the documentation, communication, and
marketing of the different models. I think a lot of people do not really
understand that we intend for it to be a simple process, and that it is NOT
the same as the chapter or ThOrg process. Some of that confusion is because
a lot of the early applicants hope to one day become a chapter or ThOrg, so
that has externally come off as a more thorough process. We are already
trying to make things like the AffCom page easier to navigate and more
visually appealing. Basically we are following Grants Dept's lead and
Heather W's example. :) Right now the user group page looks complicated
and confusing - hopefully that will change soon. Here are some examples of
where we are moving toward:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Twitter
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
That is my perspective and opinion - others on the committee may see it
differently. :)
-greg aka varnent
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos
<bdamokos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
by
a single person, then the process could indeed be
done in 30 minutes
under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online,
and all information
being
available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
the whole AffCom.
After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
for
at this point without giving up guarantees of due
diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards,
Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
"Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions?
If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it
be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of
consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an
individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to
distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>