Hi Cascadians,
I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this afternoon.
Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer network.
We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support.
I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion.
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Hi everyone,
I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us.
To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both Chapters & Thematic organizations.
My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, & then to engage them.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cascadians,
I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this afternoon.
Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer network.
We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support.
I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion.
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Hi Peaceray,
I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the picture, yes.
One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis.
Pine
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us.
To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both Chapters & Thematic organizations.
My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, & then to engage them.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cascadians,
I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this afternoon.
Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer network.
We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support.
I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion.
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Pine & all,
I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements:
- *Focus:* Geographic - *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes - *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes (signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo - *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes - *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:* Yes - *Allows new members:* Yes - *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes - *Legally incorporated:* In progress - *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has bylaws - *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October 2011, mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events - *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF responsibility - *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct) - *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:* Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at appropriate intervals
I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently got the go ahead.
Alex,
I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are working. I can see at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user group.
However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725 begins with "This page is outdated ..."
So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the picture, yes.
One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis.
Pine
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us.
To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both Chapters & Thematic organizations.
My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, & then to engage them.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cascadians,
I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this afternoon.
Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer network.
We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support.
I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion.
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Hi Peaceray,
I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user groups. CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter because it was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all new groups as user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user group* before being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are requirements that have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1].
Cheers, Kirill
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine & all,
I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements:
- *Focus:* Geographic
- *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes
(signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo
- *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes
- *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:* Yes
- *Allows new members:* Yes
- *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Legally incorporated:* In progress
- *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has
bylaws
- *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October 2011,
mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events
- *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF responsibility
- *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board
formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct)
- *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:*
Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at appropriate intervals
I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently got the go ahead.
Alex,
I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are working. I can see at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user group.
However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725 begins with "This page is outdated ..."
So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the picture, yes.
One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis.
Pine
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us.
To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both Chapters & Thematic organizations.
My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, & then to engage them.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cascadians,
I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this afternoon.
Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer network.
We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support.
I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion.
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Kirill & all,
This proves my point. The WMF Board stated that it seeks an approval requirement that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years” was made at a retreat that occurred November 22 - 23, 2013. Yet fifteen months later, where is this codified in the Requirements, Guidelines, & Creation guides for Chapters, Thematic organisations, or User groups? The nearest that I can find is at Wikimedia usergroups/Requirements https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200, where it states “Two years of activities prior to applying” as a requirement for Chapters & Thematic organisations. Two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The discrepancy makes it feel like the goal posts are being moved on us.
The Affiliations Committee should rightfully expect transparency & promptness from its present and future affiliates. We are asking that the Affiliations Committee treat us with the same transparency & promptness.
Yours, Peaceray
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user groups. CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter because it was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all new groups as user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user group* before being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are requirements that have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1].
Cheers, Kirill
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine & all,
I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements:
- *Focus:* Geographic
- *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes
(signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo
- *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes
- *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:* Yes
- *Allows new members:* Yes
- *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Legally incorporated:* In progress
- *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has
bylaws
- *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October 2011,
mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events
- *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF
responsibility
- *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board
formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct)
- *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:*
Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at appropriate intervals
I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently got the go ahead.
Alex,
I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are working. I can see at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user group.
However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725 begins with "This page is outdated ..."
So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the picture, yes.
One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis.
Pine
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us.
To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both Chapters & Thematic organizations.
My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, & then to engage them.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cascadians,
I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this afternoon.
Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer network.
We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support.
I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion.
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Hi all,
I am hoping that we hear back from Affcom about Peaceray's point.
I am planning to take Luis up on his suggestion to have a discussion on Meta, in which I will discuss the various delays and communications/documentaion issues that seem to plague our attempts to make ourselves impactful and get the approvals to enable us to make progress.
My work on the budget this week has been delayed by the need to spend many hours dealing with car issues, plus my working a little overtime at paid work. Hopefully I will have a chance to work on the budget next week.
Pine On Feb 20, 2015 10:22 AM, "Raymond Leonard" raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com wrote:
Kirill & all,
This proves my point. The WMF Board stated that it seeks an approval requirement that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years” was made at a retreat that occurred November 22 - 23, 2013. Yet fifteen months later, where is this codified in the Requirements, Guidelines, & Creation guides for Chapters, Thematic organisations, or User groups? The nearest that I can find is at Wikimedia usergroups/Requirements https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200, where it states “Two years of activities prior to applying” as a requirement for Chapters & Thematic organisations. Two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The discrepancy makes it feel like the goal posts are being moved on us.
The Affiliations Committee should rightfully expect transparency & promptness from its present and future affiliates. We are asking that the Affiliations Committee treat us with the same transparency & promptness.
Yours, Peaceray
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user groups. CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter because it was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all new groups as user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user group* before being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are requirements that have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1].
Cheers, Kirill
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine & all,
I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements:
- *Focus:* Geographic
- *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes
(signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo
- *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes
- *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:*
Yes
- *Allows new members:* Yes
- *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Legally incorporated:* In progress
- *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has
bylaws
- *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October
2011, mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events
- *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF
responsibility
- *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board
formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct)
- *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:*
Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at appropriate intervals
I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently got the go ahead.
Alex,
I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are working. I can see at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user group.
However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725 begins with "This page is outdated ..."
So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the picture, yes.
One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis.
Pine
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us.
To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both Chapters & Thematic organizations.
My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, & then to engage them.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Cascadians,
I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this afternoon.
Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer network.
We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support.
I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion.
Thanks,
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know.*
*—Catherine Munro*
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Hello Pine,
I think it is easy to understand that, even in the event that the AffCom recommends to the WMF Board the recognition of a certain group to become a chapter, the WMF Board has made it clear that it will not accept a group that has been recognized as a Wikimedia User Group for at least two years. I honestly do not see why it is so hard to understand that the AffCom guidelines have not changed and that simply, the WMF Board is the entity who has the final word on chapterhood status.
Thank you, Carlos
El 01/03/2015 a las 09:07 a.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi all,
I am hoping that we hear back from Affcom about Peaceray's point.
I am planning to take Luis up on his suggestion to have a discussion on Meta, in which I will discuss the various delays and communications/documentaion issues that seem to plague our attempts to make ourselves impactful and get the approvals to enable us to make progress.
My work on the budget this week has been delayed by the need to spend many hours dealing with car issues, plus my working a little overtime at paid work. Hopefully I will have a chance to work on the budget next week.
Pine
On Feb 20, 2015 10:22 AM, "Raymond Leonard" <raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com mailto:raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Kirill & all, This proves my point. The WMF Board stated that it seeks an approval requirement that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years” was made at a retreat that occurred November 22 - 23, 2013. Yet fifteen months later, where is this codified in the Requirements, Guidelines, & Creation guides for Chapters, Thematic organisations, or User groups? The nearest that I can find is at Wikimedia usergroups/Requirements <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200>, where it states “Two years of activities prior to applying” as a requirement for Chapters & Thematic organisations. Two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The discrepancy makes it feel like the goal posts are being moved on us. The Affiliations Committee should rightfully expect transparency & promptness from its present and future affiliates. We are asking that the Affiliations Committee treat us with the same transparency & promptness. Yours, Peaceray On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com <mailto:kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Peaceray, I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user groups. CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter because it was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all new groups as user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user group* before being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are requirements that have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1]. Cheers, Kirill [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard <raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com <mailto:raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com>> wrote: Pine & all, I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements: * *Focus:* Geographic * *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes * *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes (signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo * *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes * *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:* Yes * *Allows new members:* Yes * *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes * *Legally incorporated:* In progress * *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has bylaws * *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October 2011, mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events * *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF responsibility * *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct) * *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:* Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at appropriate intervals I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently got the go ahead. Alex, I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are working. I can see at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user group. However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725> begins with "This page is outdated ..." So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that. Yours, Peaceray On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com <mailto:wiki.pine@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Peaceray, I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the picture, yes. One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis. Pine Pine* * _This is an Encyclopedia_ <https://www.wikipedia.org/>/ One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know. ///—/Catherine Munro / On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard <raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com <mailto:raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone, I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibility probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us. To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both Chapters & Thematic organizations. My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, & then to engage them. Yours, Peaceray On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com <mailto:wiki.pine@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Cascadians, I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this afternoon. Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer network. We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support. I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion. Thanks, Pine* * _This is an Encyclopedia_ <https://www.wikipedia.org/>/ One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know. ///—/Catherine Munro / _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Affiliations Committee mailing list AffCom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
Carlos,
My apologies for not responding right away, but for some reason I did not receive this in my mailbox until this morning.
You are not responding to the point we raised. Please see my emails of 2/19 & 2/20.
The point is that there is a difference between what AffCom Wiki communicates to affiliates & potential affiliates & what is reality.
Yes, at its retreat on November 22 - 23, 2013, the BoT instituted a requirement that "All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles" This was first published three months later, here http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes/2013-11-24&oldid=95803 .
Yet a year after that, I could not find anything under the Affiliations Committee portal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee that reflected this requirement. Are you implying that potential affiliates need to go to BoT minutes to find their requirements rather than to AffCom's documentation? I think not, but AffCom failure to document the BoT requirement for at least a year is a problem.
Even today, the Wikimedia user groups/Requirement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200 lists a requirement of "Two years of activities prior to applying" for Chapters & Thematic organisations. As I stated in my 2/20 email, two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The Portland, OR & Seattle, WA meetups, components of CWUG, have been organizing activities for over three years, as opposed to when AffCom resolved to recognize Cascadia Wikimedians as a Wikimedia User Group last September.
Inadequate & outdated documentation will only lead to disappointment & frustration for affiliates & potential affiliates who feel that they are be tripped up by esoteric rules & deadlines known only to AffCom.
CWUG wants to show our due diligence by adhering to both requirements & timelines, but we need to know what is required of us, when it is required, & when we can expect responses. We ask for your help in this matter by clearly documenting requirements, timelines, & deadlines. The failure to clearly document the length of time required for a user group to become a chapter or a thematic organization is not the only issue. Please review the emails from both Pine & myself earlier in this thread. As Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee, surely you can initiate some change in this regard.
Yours, Peaceray
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Hello Pine,
I think it is easy to understand that, even in the event that the AffCom recommends to the WMF Board the recognition of a certain group to become a chapter, the WMF Board has made it clear that it will not accept a group that has been recognized as a Wikimedia User Group for at least two years. I honestly do not see why it is so hard to understand that the AffCom guidelines have not changed and that simply, the WMF Board is the entity who has the final word on chapterhood status.
Thank you, Carlos
El 01/03/2015 a las 09:07 a.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi all,
I am hoping that we hear back from Affcom about Peaceray's point.
I am planning to take Luis up on his suggestion to have a discussion on Meta, in which I will discuss the various delays and communications/documentaion issues that seem to plague our attempts to make ourselves impactful and get the approvals to enable us to make progress.
My work on the budget this week has been delayed by the need to spend many hours dealing with car issues, plus my working a little overtime at paid work. Hopefully I will have a chance to work on the budget next week.
Pine On Feb 20, 2015 10:22 AM, "Raymond Leonard" < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Kirill & all,
This proves my point. The WMF Board stated that it seeks an approval requirement that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years” was made at a retreat that occurred November 22 - 23, 2013. Yet fifteen months later, where is this codified in the Requirements, Guidelines, & Creation guides for Chapters, Thematic organisations, or User groups? The nearest that I can find is at Wikimedia usergroups/Requirements https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200, where it states “Two years of activities prior to applying” as a requirement for Chapters & Thematic organisations. Two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The discrepancy makes it feel like the goal posts are being moved on us.
The Affiliations Committee should rightfully expect transparency & promptness from its present and future affiliates. We are asking that the Affiliations Committee treat us with the same transparency & promptness.
Yours, Peaceray
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user groups. CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter because it was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all new groups as user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user group* before being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are requirements that have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1].
Cheers, Kirill
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine & all,
I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements:
- *Focus:* Geographic
- *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes
(signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo
- *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes
- *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:*
Yes
- *Allows new members:* Yes
- *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Legally incorporated:* In progress
- *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has
bylaws
- *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October
2011, mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events
- *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF
responsibility - *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct)
- *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:*
Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at appropriate intervals
I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently got the go ahead.
Alex,
I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are working. I can see at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user group.
However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725 begins with "This page is outdated ..."
So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the picture, yes.
One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis.
Pine
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
- One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep
rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know. *
*—Catherine Munro *
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation models" table in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us.
To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for both Chapters & Thematic organizations.
My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join CWUG as members, & then to engage them.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Cascadians, > > I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this > afternoon. > > Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority > should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that > we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid > positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to > develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be > significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer > network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and > public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be > able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low > intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. > Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer > network. > > We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on > development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting > the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and > have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I > have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the > development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a > learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first > discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have > finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and > funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support. > > I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any > comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to > direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, > preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion. > > Thanks, > > Pine > > *This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/ > > > > > > > * One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep > rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear > water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile > earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And > the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much > we do not know. * > > *—Catherine Munro * > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list > Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia > >
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Affiliations Committee mailing listAffCom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Peaceray,
I am not sure if you saw my response to Pine, but some additional info.
We are aware of the contents of the board's letter. The table accurately reflects the criteria that AffCom reviews before considering a potential chapter, and the board is aware of that. As such, it will not be changed at this time. It is a clarification based on AffCom's conversations with the BoT and is accurate. It is very common for these types of refinements to be made. Wikimedia Belgium is an example of why this clarification was made. Since the WUG model was not available when Belgium began, it did not make sense to ask them to become a WUG first. However, in almost all other cases, doing those two years of activities as a WUG is preferred and recommended - and that is communicated to applicants - as it was with Cascadia. If the group feels they meet the two year requirement and wish to apply, we will not stop you. However, activities done prior to WUG recognition are often - but not always - not at chapter-recognition level quality. Sometimes those done after recognition are not quality enough either.
The requirement is written as such because we are more interested in two years of quality programming than we are two years as a WUG - it just happens to be that for most groups that will be done while they are a WUG. That is why I am not sure that I agree with your assessment that they are very different, in our assessment, in practical execution, they often are linked. However, we reserve the right to provide the board with any unique exceptions - as we did with Belgium. As Carlos has pointed out, the AffCom recommends chapters for recognition to the BoT - we are not the final recognition entity as is the case with WUGs. It does not appear to me that Cascadia is one of those exceptions, but you are certainly welcome to present otherwise and the committee will consider it. Do keep in mind that activities done by people who eventually formed the group are different from activities done by the group itself.
All affiliate documentation is in the process of being redone. Once the WUG documentation is completed, we will be updating Chapter and ThOrg documentation. This will be made clearer in those updates. I do apologize that these updates are not yet done, and we certainly agree it needs to be, but as a volunteer group we have to triage our efforts. There are dozens are groups considering becoming a WUG, and only a few actively looking at becoming a chapter, so the WUG documentation and process has our focus right now. Until those updates are done, you are welcome to ask for clarification as you have done, but the recently updated documentation accurately reflects what this committee reviews in applications.
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Carlos,
My apologies for not responding right away, but for some reason I did not receive this in my mailbox until this morning.
You are not responding to the point we raised. Please see my emails of 2/19 & 2/20.
The point is that there is a difference between what AffCom Wiki communicates to affiliates & potential affiliates & what is reality.
Yes, at its retreat on November 22 - 23, 2013, the BoT instituted a requirement that "All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles" This was first published three months later, here http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes/2013-11-24&oldid=95803 .
Yet a year after that, I could not find anything under the Affiliations Committee portal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee that reflected this requirement. Are you implying that potential affiliates need to go to BoT minutes to find their requirements rather than to AffCom's documentation? I think not, but AffCom failure to document the BoT requirement for at least a year is a problem.
Even today, the Wikimedia user groups/Requirement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200 lists a requirement of "Two years of activities prior to applying" for Chapters & Thematic organisations. As I stated in my 2/20 email, two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The Portland, OR & Seattle, WA meetups, components of CWUG, have been organizing activities for over three years, as opposed to when AffCom resolved to recognize Cascadia Wikimedians as a Wikimedia User Group last September.
Inadequate & outdated documentation will only lead to disappointment & frustration for affiliates & potential affiliates who feel that they are be tripped up by esoteric rules & deadlines known only to AffCom.
CWUG wants to show our due diligence by adhering to both requirements & timelines, but we need to know what is required of us, when it is required, & when we can expect responses. We ask for your help in this matter by clearly documenting requirements, timelines, & deadlines. The failure to clearly document the length of time required for a user group to become a chapter or a thematic organization is not the only issue. Please review the emails from both Pine & myself earlier in this thread. As Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee, surely you can initiate some change in this regard.
Yours, Peaceray
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Hello Pine,
I think it is easy to understand that, even in the event that the AffCom recommends to the WMF Board the recognition of a certain group to become a chapter, the WMF Board has made it clear that it will not accept a group that has been recognized as a Wikimedia User Group for at least two years. I honestly do not see why it is so hard to understand that the AffCom guidelines have not changed and that simply, the WMF Board is the entity who has the final word on chapterhood status.
Thank you, Carlos
El 01/03/2015 a las 09:07 a.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi all,
I am hoping that we hear back from Affcom about Peaceray's point.
I am planning to take Luis up on his suggestion to have a discussion on Meta, in which I will discuss the various delays and communications/documentaion issues that seem to plague our attempts to make ourselves impactful and get the approvals to enable us to make progress.
My work on the budget this week has been delayed by the need to spend many hours dealing with car issues, plus my working a little overtime at paid work. Hopefully I will have a chance to work on the budget next week.
Pine On Feb 20, 2015 10:22 AM, "Raymond Leonard" < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Kirill & all,
This proves my point. The WMF Board stated that it seeks an approval requirement that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years” was made at a retreat that occurred November 22 - 23, 2013. Yet fifteen months later, where is this codified in the Requirements, Guidelines, & Creation guides for Chapters, Thematic organisations, or User groups? The nearest that I can find is at Wikimedia usergroups/Requirements https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200, where it states “Two years of activities prior to applying” as a requirement for Chapters & Thematic organisations. Two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The discrepancy makes it feel like the goal posts are being moved on us.
The Affiliations Committee should rightfully expect transparency & promptness from its present and future affiliates. We are asking that the Affiliations Committee treat us with the same transparency & promptness.
Yours, Peaceray
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin < kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user groups. CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter because it was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all new groups as user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user group* before being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are requirements that have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1].
Cheers, Kirill
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine & all,
I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements:
- *Focus:* Geographic
- *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes
(signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo
- *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes
- *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:*
Yes
- *Allows new members:* Yes
- *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Legally incorporated:* In progress
- *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has
bylaws
- *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October
2011, mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events
- *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF
responsibility - *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct)
- *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:*
Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at appropriate intervals
I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently got the go ahead.
Alex,
I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are working. I can see at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user group.
However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725 begins with "This page is outdated ..."
So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of the picture, yes.
One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they can streamline processes and address communication issues across departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a conversation with Luis.
Pine
Pine
*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/
- One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep
rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not know. *
*—Catherine Munro *
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation > models" table in > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... > probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us. > > To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and > the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state > that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 > & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for > both Chapters & Thematic organizations. > > My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build > credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board > & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia > projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do > this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join > CWUG as members, & then to engage them. > > Yours, > Peaceray > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > >> Hi Cascadians, >> >> I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this >> afternoon. >> >> Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority >> should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that >> we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid >> positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to >> develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be >> significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer >> network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and >> public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be >> able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low >> intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. >> Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer >> network. >> >> We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on >> development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting >> the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and >> have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I >> have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the >> development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a >> learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first >> discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have >> finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and >> funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support. >> >> I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any >> comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to >> direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, >> preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Pine >> >> *This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep >> rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear >> water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile >> earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And >> the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much >> we do not know. * >> >> *—Catherine Munro * >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list >> Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list > Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia > >
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Affiliations Committee mailing listAffCom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Affiliations Committee mailing list AffCom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
Greg,
Thank you for the update. One of the quirks with the list.wikimedia.org is I did not receive your email until today.
Thanks, Peaceray
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Gregory Varnum greg.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Peaceray,
I am not sure if you saw my response to Pine, but some additional info.
We are aware of the contents of the board's letter. The table accurately reflects the criteria that AffCom reviews before considering a potential chapter, and the board is aware of that. As such, it will not be changed at this time. It is a clarification based on AffCom's conversations with the BoT and is accurate. It is very common for these types of refinements to be made. Wikimedia Belgium is an example of why this clarification was made. Since the WUG model was not available when Belgium began, it did not make sense to ask them to become a WUG first. However, in almost all other cases, doing those two years of activities as a WUG is preferred and recommended - and that is communicated to applicants - as it was with Cascadia. If the group feels they meet the two year requirement and wish to apply, we will not stop you. However, activities done prior to WUG recognition are often - but not always - not at chapter-recognition level quality. Sometimes those done after recognition are not quality enough either.
The requirement is written as such because we are more interested in two years of quality programming than we are two years as a WUG - it just happens to be that for most groups that will be done while they are a WUG. That is why I am not sure that I agree with your assessment that they are very different, in our assessment, in practical execution, they often are linked. However, we reserve the right to provide the board with any unique exceptions - as we did with Belgium. As Carlos has pointed out, the AffCom recommends chapters for recognition to the BoT - we are not the final recognition entity as is the case with WUGs. It does not appear to me that Cascadia is one of those exceptions, but you are certainly welcome to present otherwise and the committee will consider it. Do keep in mind that activities done by people who eventually formed the group are different from activities done by the group itself.
All affiliate documentation is in the process of being redone. Once the WUG documentation is completed, we will be updating Chapter and ThOrg documentation. This will be made clearer in those updates. I do apologize that these updates are not yet done, and we certainly agree it needs to be, but as a volunteer group we have to triage our efforts. There are dozens are groups considering becoming a WUG, and only a few actively looking at becoming a chapter, so the WUG documentation and process has our focus right now. Until those updates are done, you are welcome to ask for clarification as you have done, but the recently updated documentation accurately reflects what this committee reviews in applications.
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Carlos,
My apologies for not responding right away, but for some reason I did not receive this in my mailbox until this morning.
You are not responding to the point we raised. Please see my emails of 2/19 & 2/20.
The point is that there is a difference between what AffCom Wiki communicates to affiliates & potential affiliates & what is reality.
Yes, at its retreat on November 22 - 23, 2013, the BoT instituted a requirement that "All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles" This was first published three months later, here http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes/2013-11-24&oldid=95803 .
Yet a year after that, I could not find anything under the Affiliations Committee portal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee that reflected this requirement. Are you implying that potential affiliates need to go to BoT minutes to find their requirements rather than to AffCom's documentation? I think not, but AffCom failure to document the BoT requirement for at least a year is a problem.
Even today, the Wikimedia user groups/Requirement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200 lists a requirement of "Two years of activities prior to applying" for Chapters & Thematic organisations. As I stated in my 2/20 email, two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The Portland, OR & Seattle, WA meetups, components of CWUG, have been organizing activities for over three years, as opposed to when AffCom resolved to recognize Cascadia Wikimedians as a Wikimedia User Group last September.
Inadequate & outdated documentation will only lead to disappointment & frustration for affiliates & potential affiliates who feel that they are be tripped up by esoteric rules & deadlines known only to AffCom.
CWUG wants to show our due diligence by adhering to both requirements & timelines, but we need to know what is required of us, when it is required, & when we can expect responses. We ask for your help in this matter by clearly documenting requirements, timelines, & deadlines. The failure to clearly document the length of time required for a user group to become a chapter or a thematic organization is not the only issue. Please review the emails from both Pine & myself earlier in this thread. As Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee, surely you can initiate some change in this regard.
Yours, Peaceray
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Hello Pine,
I think it is easy to understand that, even in the event that the AffCom recommends to the WMF Board the recognition of a certain group to become a chapter, the WMF Board has made it clear that it will not accept a group that has been recognized as a Wikimedia User Group for at least two years. I honestly do not see why it is so hard to understand that the AffCom guidelines have not changed and that simply, the WMF Board is the entity who has the final word on chapterhood status.
Thank you, Carlos
El 01/03/2015 a las 09:07 a.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi all,
I am hoping that we hear back from Affcom about Peaceray's point.
I am planning to take Luis up on his suggestion to have a discussion on Meta, in which I will discuss the various delays and communications/documentaion issues that seem to plague our attempts to make ourselves impactful and get the approvals to enable us to make progress.
My work on the budget this week has been delayed by the need to spend many hours dealing with car issues, plus my working a little overtime at paid work. Hopefully I will have a chance to work on the budget next week.
Pine On Feb 20, 2015 10:22 AM, "Raymond Leonard" < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Kirill & all,
This proves my point. The WMF Board stated that it seeks an approval requirement that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years” was made at a retreat that occurred November 22 - 23, 2013. Yet fifteen months later, where is this codified in the Requirements, Guidelines, & Creation guides for Chapters, Thematic organisations, or User groups? The nearest that I can find is at Wikimedia usergroups/Requirements https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements&oldid=10838200, where it states “Two years of activities prior to applying” as a requirement for Chapters & Thematic organisations. Two years of activities is a _very_ different thing than being recognized as a Wikimedia user group for two years. The discrepancy makes it feel like the goal posts are being moved on us.
The Affiliations Committee should rightfully expect transparency & promptness from its present and future affiliates. We are asking that the Affiliations Committee treat us with the same transparency & promptness.
Yours, Peaceray
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin < kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peaceray,
I just wanted to clarify one point regarding chapters and user groups. CWUG wasn't classified as a user group instead of as a chapter because it was more expedient, or because the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters; rather, the mandatory classification of all new groups as user groups -- and a two-year period of activity *as a user group* before being able to apply for recognition as a chapter -- are requirements that have been set by the WMF Board of Trustees [1].
Cheers, Kirill
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Raymond Leonard < raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
Pine & all,
I am agreed that this has been rough & frustrating process, especially considering that our goal is to become a chapter & that we got the word that initially becoming a user group should be more expedient. Consider that beyond membership goals, there are an additional six requirements (listed first) in common for user groups, chapters, & thematic organizations, & an additional six for chapters & thematic organizations. Here is how CWUG stack up on those requirements:
- *Focus:* Geographic
- *Mission aligned with Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Compliance with naming guidelines and trademark policy:* Yes
(signed agreement); consulted with legal team when designing CWUG logo
- *Information about group published on a Wikimedia wiki:* Yes
- *Plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects:*
Yes
- *Allows new members:* Yes
- *Two designated contacts for Wikimedia Foundation:* Yes
- *Legally incorporated:* In progress
- *Amendable bylaws approved by Affiliations Committee:* CWUG has
bylaws
- *Two years of activities prior to applying:* Starting October
2011, mostly monthly activities (36 meetups or events) in Seattle; Since January 2012, Portland has had 30 meetups or events
- *Requires approval by Wikimedia Foundation Board: *WMF
responsibility - *Governing board elected by members, including new members:* Board formed, election at end of first year (11/2015, if I am correct)
- *Activity and financial reports posted regularly on Meta-Wiki:*
Mission statement, goals, plans, & budget posted, reports coming at appropriate intervals
I do think that CWUG has done its due diligence thus far, given that we have gone beyond the requirements of a user group & that we just recently got the go ahead.
Alex,
I know that WMF has had some misgivings with the how chapters are working. I can see at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports&oldid=11312318 that 31% of the chapters & thematic reports are overdue on their reports. (Bluerasberry & Pharos, if you are reading this, please light a fire under Wikimedia New York City, because their report was due at the end of October.) I know that some are years behind or just plain defunct. There have been reports of one chapter in turmoil, having completely voted out its board. I can understand why the Affiliations Committee is skittish about new chapters & is encouraging groups to initially start as a user group.
However, even though "Wikimedia user groups are intended to be simple and flexible affiliates", it is feeling a bit broken & anything but simple. I know that Pine has submitted applications & documentation in a timely manner, but the projected time for approval that was supposed to be 2 to 4 weeks then stretched into months. The suddenness of the grantmaking deadline was, well, unexpected. Had we gotten a more timely approval to become a user group, we would have had more time to consult or have a back-and-forth about the budget instead of feeling like we had to rush headlong into it. And for a group that yearns to become a chapter, consider how discouraging it is that the Step-by-step chapter creation guide https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step-by-step_chapter_creation_guide&oldid=8213725 begins with "This page is outdated ..."
So please forgive us that even with you approach us with a legitimate concern that we need to grow our membership at first, it feels to us like another roadblock. Frankly, we just want to get to the point where we can just start moving ahead as a user group with events, partnerships, member recruiting, and reporting so we can further Wikipedia & the other Wikimedia projects. This is the fifth board that II have served on, & I know that while accounting & documentation are important, the thing that really perpetuates an organization is serving its purpose & its members. Please help us to expedite this process so we can turn our attention to that.
Yours, Peaceray
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Peaceray, > > I think that expanded membership and volunteer capacity is part of > the picture, yes. > > One thing I think we should consider discussing with WMF at a > fairly high level are the systematic problems we have been encountering > with our group's formation and funding. We have had issues with Affcom > delays, WMF Legal delays, Grantmaking springing a deadline on us related to > the Inspire campaign, and now a need to reorient our annual plan based on > expectations that do not appear to be documented on Meta (something that I > confirmed with someone who is active in another chapter). I am starting to > understand why chapters get so frustrated with WMF. My experience with WMF > prior to this has never had such a series of speedbumps, and I would like > to know if the Board would like me to address this series of issues that > spans WMF departments with WMF's new Senior Director of Community > Engagement, Luis Villa, who was recently promoted out of WMF's Legal > department. Personally I am quite frustrated at the amount of volunteer > time that is being expended in unproductive ways, and the systemic nature > of the problems suggests to me that these issues need to be addressed by > someone in WMF who is placed highly enough in the organization that they > can streamline processes and address communication issues across > departments. Please let me know if you would like me to set up a > conversation with Luis. > > Pine > > Pine > > *This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/ > > > > > > > * One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep > rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear > water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile > earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And > the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much > we do not know. * > > *—Catherine Munro * > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Raymond Leonard < > raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I think that the "Comparison of requirements for affiliation >> models" table in >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Requirements#eligibili... >> probably applies to the WMF's current perception of us. >> >> To the point of "our priority should be expanding the number and >> the capacity of our volunteers," the rows at the head of the stable state >> that the Minimum active Wikimedia editors & Suggested minimum members are 3 >> & 10 respectively for a Wikimedia user groups and 10 & 20 respectively for >> both Chapters & Thematic organizations. >> >> My takeaway from that page is that the easiest way to build >> credibility with WMF is to grow our recognized membership beyond the board >> & to implement "plans for activities or efforts to advance Wikimedia >> projects." We already have folks beyond the board who have worked to do >> this. I think our first step should be to enable & recruit them to join >> CWUG as members, & then to engage them. >> >> Yours, >> Peaceray >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Cascadians, >>> >>> I had a conversation about our draft annual plan with Alex this >>> afternoon. >>> >>> Alex believes that at this point in our development, our priority >>> should be expanding the number and the capacity of our volunteers, and that >>> we are too early in our development for the temporary / part-time paid >>> positions that we proposed in our budget. This means that our goals to >>> develop institutional partnerships and to do outreach work must be >>> significantly reduced in proportion to the capacity of our volunteer >>> network. We know that we have many opportunities for partnerships and >>> public engagement in the Cascadia region, and hopefully we will still be >>> able to pursue those partnerships and engagement opportunities at a low >>> intensity level that our volunteers can support in a sustainable way. >>> Again, Alex believes that our first goal should be to expand our volunteer >>> network. >>> >>> We will need to reorient our plans and our budget to focus on >>> development and support of our volunteer network. I will work on redrafting >>> the goals, calendar, plan and budget over the course of the next week, and >>> have a conversation with Alex about the possible revisions next week. I >>> have also asked Alex to create a learning pattern that describes the >>> development path of organizations such as ours; I think that such a >>> learning pattern would have been very helpful to us when we were first >>> discussing our goals for this year. After the conversations with Alex have >>> finished, I plan to re-engage with our Board to discuss the goals and >>> funding that Alex and WMF feel that they are willing to support. >>> >>> I am cc'ing this email to Alex and hope that she will add any >>> comments or clarifications that she has. It would probably be best to >>> direct any questions or comments from Cascadians directly to Alex, >>> preferably on this list so that others can benefit from the discussion. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Pine >>> >>> *This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep >>> rock of our past, in which we must delve The well of our future, The clear >>> water we must leave untainted for those who come after us, The fertile >>> earth, in which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands, And >>> the broad fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much >>> we do not know. * >>> >>> *—Catherine Munro * >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list >>> Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list >> Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list > Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia > >
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Affiliations Committee mailing listAffCom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list Wikimedia-Cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-cascadia
Affiliations Committee mailing list AffCom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
Carlos,
I believe that Peaceray was pointing out a documentation problem rather than an issue with the nature of the required approval. The Board said that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years”. That is different from the table on the page that Peaceray linked which says that chapters should have “Two years of activities prior to applying”.
There does seem to be a trend of inaccurate documentation on Meta. This is not just an issue with Affcom, it's an issue with WMF in general including Finance and Grantmaking. I will discuss the broader issue with Luis. In the meantime, please fix the table that Peaceray referenced.
Thank you,
Pine
Pine,
We are aware of the contents of the board's letter. The table accurately reflects the criteria that AffCom reviews before considering a potential chapter, and the board is aware of that (some of them are receiving this as one example). As such, it will not be changed at this time.
All affiliate documentation is in the process of being redone. Once the WUG documentation is completed, we will be updating chapter and thorg documentation.
-greg
_______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Carlos,
I believe that Peaceray was pointing out a documentation problem rather than an issue with the nature of the required approval. The Board said that “All organizations wishing to be recognized as a chapter or thematic organization must first be recognized as … a (not necessarily incorporated) Wikimedia user group for at least two years”. That is different from the table on the page that Peaceray linked which says that chapters should have “Two years of activities prior to applying”.
There does seem to be a trend of inaccurate documentation on Meta. This is not just an issue with Affcom, it's an issue with WMF in general including Finance and Grantmaking. I will discuss the broader issue with Luis. In the meantime, please fix the table that Peaceray referenced.
Thank you,
Pine
Affiliations Committee mailing list AffCom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
wikimedia-cascadia@lists.wikimedia.org