Dear list,
A reminder: we have a meeting scheduled for this Sunday at 1730 UTC. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Meeting:_Sunday.2C_12_Feb...
Some topics related to movement roles were raised at last weekend's Board meeting. These are summarized on the same page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Issues_raised_at_the_Febr...
Standards for accountability and standards for Wikimedia committees are being drafted on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Audit_committee/Draft_Accountability_standard...
Two resolutions related to new models will be drafted in a similar fashion over the coming month, with input from the current ChapCom. (ChapCom is being asked to expand its scope to include new models, and to expressly help mentor existing groups.) I will post a link to the draft once it is up.
Looking forward to seeing many of you on Sunday, SJ
Sj, I saw this after Bence's email.
This is the first time I'm hearing about expanding ChapCom role. It's already a drafted resolution?
If it is going to be taken as an MR recommendation, I would have thought we would have agreement internally first, I even thought we would circulate them to the community before board makes a resolution on any of these?
I'm really surprised to have read about this in Stu's blog as if it was a locked recommendation by MR group, only a couple of hours after it was brought up here.
Regards Theo
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Dear list,
A reminder: we have a meeting scheduled for this Sunday at 1730 UTC.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Meeting:_Sunday.2C_12_Feb...
Some topics related to movement roles were raised at last weekend's Board meeting. These are summarized on the same page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Issues_raised_at_the_Febr...
Standards for accountability and standards for Wikimedia committees are being drafted on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Audit_committee/Draft_Accountability_standard...
Two resolutions related to new models will be drafted in a similar fashion over the coming month, with input from the current ChapCom. (ChapCom is being asked to expand its scope to include new models, and to expressly help mentor existing groups.) I will post a link to the draft once it is up.
Looking forward to seeing many of you on Sunday, SJ
-- skype:metasj +1 617 529 4266
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi Theo,
If it is going to be taken as an MR recommendation, I would have thought we would have agreement internally first
This wasn't taken as a final recommendation by MR, though the Board was focused on the topic thanks to the public work that this group has done. We are circulating this among this group over the weekend, and to the community afterwards for a month, for public editing and discussion.
I'm really surprised to have read about this in Stu's blog as if it was a locked recommendation by MR group, only a couple of hours after it was
It's not locked, hence the public review. The Board is committed to recognizing new models and simplifying the path to recognition and joining the movement -- but recognizes that the details may need refinement.
SJ
Hiya Sj
A couple of points.
We did agree on recognizing new models and entities, the last I remember the suggestion was still creation of an AssCom or similar body. The first I heard of extending ChapCom scope is from Sue's blog, mentioning the recommendation of MR group. Even ChapCom confirmed they heard about this yesterday, considering there are a few people from ChapCom and the board in the group, this was news to me.
Since, both you and Stu are on the board, this conflates the situation a bit. I think we have an idea about where the group is and how far our recommendations have gone, but Stu and other board/staff members, and others have been generously using MR group in their discussions. Bence hit the point on the head in his reply on Internal.
Regards Theo
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo,
If it is going to be taken as an MR recommendation, I would have thought
we
would have agreement internally first
This wasn't taken as a final recommendation by MR, though the Board was focused on the topic thanks to the public work that this group has done. We are circulating this among this group over the weekend, and to the community afterwards for a month, for public editing and discussion.
I'm really surprised to have read about this in Stu's blog as if it was a locked recommendation by MR group, only a couple of hours after it was
It's not locked, hence the public review. The Board is committed to recognizing new models and simplifying the path to recognition and joining the movement -- but recognizes that the details may need refinement.
SJ
Hi Theo,
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
We did agree on recognizing new models and entities, the last I remember the suggestion was still creation of an AssCom or similar body. The first I heard of extending ChapCom scope is from Sue's blog, mentioning the recommendation of MR group. Even ChapCom confirmed they heard about this yesterday, considering there are a few people from ChapCom and the board in the group, this was news to me.
A separate AffCom was discussed first. The MR discussions on Meta covered various ways to realize the idea of such a committee -- from a separate AffCom that works with ChapCom, to a merged group that addressed all affiliations.
The Board was primarily concerned about committee overload (something we discussed in this group as well) - having too many people on different bodies. And so suggested a change to ChapCom to a new body that might draw energy away from it.
Bence hit the point on the head in his reply on Internal.
Yes. we should clarify our own conclusions in the discussion on Meta, and note the places where our working group had other ideas or did not reach consensus.
SJ
movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org