Fantastic news! Congratulations! Jason On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Sydney <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Sven Manguard <svenmanguard(a)gmail.com> wrote: My assumption was that it was an organization still in a very early stage and that it would be reevaluated after it developed more. e.g. maybe it's not incorporated yet and it would be reevaluated after incorporation. But maybe I misunderstand how the process works in general or maybe this particular case is special in some way. Anyway, agreed, great news. -Jeremy

If memory serves, the thinking generally was that _because_ user groups are lightweight and easy to get recognized, we wouldn't want scores of defunct user groups lying around, so recognition is set to expire _unless_ a group is active, is producing reports, etc., in which case securing renewal toward the end of the term should be trivial. A. On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks &lt;mcdevitd(a)gmail.com > You can see the questions AffCom put to us, and my replies, here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/US/Consortium#AffCom_quest… > > The term of the recognition is the last question in the list, and Bence > (CCed) commented that "(default is a renewable one year term; I expect in > your case it would also be "1 year")". I just accepted that suggestion and > didn't go dig any deeper into the implications or other options, because it > didn't seem like a big deal. It is similar to the standard chapter > agreement language: < > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_Agreements/2007_template#9._Duration…gt;. > Note that user groups are not typically incorporated and do not need > bylaws, but there may still be other reasons (trademark usage and activity > level, for example) for having a periodic review. If you are curious about > why AffCom does that, though, they seem fairly responsive to questions. > > Dominic > > On 26 June 2013 13:15, Jeremy Baron &lt;jeremy(a)tuxmachine.com> >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Sven Manguard &lt;svenmanguard(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> > Pardon my ignorance, but is the one-year term a standard now for >> Wikimedia >> > entities, or is this a special case? >> > >> > It strikes me as rather strange. >> >> My assumption was that it was an organization still in a very early >> stage and that it would be reevaluated after it developed more. e.g. >> maybe it's not incorporated yet and it would be reevaluated after >> incorporation. >> >> But maybe I misunderstand how the process works in general or maybe >> this particular case is special in some way. >> >> Anyway, agreed, great news. >> >> -Jeremy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GLAM-US mailing list >> GLAM-US(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us >> > > > _______________________________________________ > GLAM-US mailing list > GLAM-US(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us > > -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org