Obviously, having more user groups would be great, but
we do not currently
know how many are not being created due to the process.
It is entirely possible, that the creation of active user groups (without
further investments and interventions into seeding communities) is
currently maxed out already.
This cannot be true because we know of at least one
group with established contact, a web page and a history of projects which is NOT
recognized. If even one group, especially one with a track record, is being marginalized
under the current process, that process needs to be looked at.
If I understand the rest of Bence's email, the issues seem to be that 1) approving
more groups may mean a higher rate of failure and 2) more groups means that resources
(time, money) will be taken from established groups.
If these are the main concerns, why create the categories of thematic groups and user
groups in the first place? Why does AffComm place a higher priority on
already-recognized groups over those looking already working but lacking the same status?
Is anyone on AffCom not already part of a chapter or other recognized affiliate? If not,
who speaks for those who are still outside the system?
From: bdamokos(a)gmail.com
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 14:17:13 +0200
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Samuel Klein <sj(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Bence Damokos
<bdamokos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is
a requirement for user
groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined
but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has
been a "history".
I see, thank you for explaining. I believe this refers to the language in
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affil…
Would it be more helpful if the clause you mention were changed to
read "an established contact person and a wikipage describing the
group's activity"? I believe that is equally representative of the
thinking behind the resolution.
If the the Board can remedy unfortunate wording that is slowing things
down, I will propose a change right away.
Yes, that would be an improvement and closer to the current interpretation.
In any case, the more automation and
simplification we can introduce into
the process, the better.
Agreed. :)
Greg writes:
Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a
request comes in, someone
is
assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that
person feels okay or
doesn't have questions, they send the info to the group, post a
resolution,
and we vote.
If the process can't be done in a single pass, it's probably too
complicated.
Compare the process of forming a Meetup group. There are basic
standards of behavior and usage -- applied via review after the fact,
soft-security style -- and measures of activity. But as soon as you
finish filling out a form describing your group, it has been created +
is visible online + has its events included in a global calendar, and
starts to get updates and support.
I might be mistaken, but
meetup.com groups cost money to maintain, don't
they? (And that might itself be a security feature.)
Obviously, having more user groups would be great, but we do not currently
know how many are not being created due to the process.
It is entirely possible, that the creation of active user groups (without
further investments and interventions into seeding communities) is
currently maxed out already. Even in the case of review after the fact, we
might just be shifting the burden on volunteers down the line in time to
prove that they have measured up to the requirements. (On the other hand,
it is also a possible hypothesis, that there is a ratio of active to
inactive user groups that is "natural", and just by increasing the numbers,
we can maintain the ratio and grow the number of active ones.)
As there is not enough evidence to suggest that user group status in itself
can act as a catalyst where there is not a strong seed of community in
place, or that we are failing en masse in recognising those communities
that actively seek recognition (we may be slow, but the failure rate should
be within normal levels), simply opening the gates will not necessarily
going to result in more Wikimedia activity in more places of the world (the
ultimate end goal of the exercise).
This is not to say that there is no need to simplify the process -- there
is lots -- but there should be a holistic picture: there is need for
helping communities be created, for helping communities grow, there is need
to provide recognition to volunteers, there is need for providing support,
resources and advice to existing groups, there is a need to provide some
level of oversight [somebody has to read the reports that are being
produced at the least] -- we can stress the system by adding hundreds of
user groups [the recognition element in the picture] but that will not
result in a successful user group model unless we can provide the resources
for all the connected services so that we can set them up for success.
Best regards,
Bence
_______________________________________________
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>