Dear Kiril, Philip and colleagues,
Please explain the nature of reasons that cause trouble in having multiple Wikimedia
affiliates in the area, as this seems to be context specific.
It's possible that our context in Russia is very different, which is why we are
actually welcoming creation of new UGs throughout the country, both territorially and
thematically oriented ones (on top of the Wikimedia Russia national chapter).
Should you give more reasons why this seems causing conflict, I might.
Over here we are quite happy with existing collaboration at all levels and are even
looking forward to developing a mechanism to speed up their formation throughout the
country - namely
Myself
and other representatives of Wikimedia Russia discussed this in detail and welcomed by
AffCom secretary during Wikimania 2017
initiative, I will eventually proceed to
registering a Tatarstan-oriented thematic multilingual UG, on top of recently registered
&
Wikimedia Russia, in both of which I am currently a member.
regards,
farhad
--
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин
Тел.+79274158066 / skype:frhdkazan /
Wikipedia:frhdkazan
14.02.2019, 03:25, "Kiril Simeonovski" <kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi Paulo,
Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is exactly the
opposite of what the Affiliations Committee is doing in practice. The
so-called 'Brazilian scenario' emerged in Macedonia when, in 2016, the
committee decided to recognise a second user group on the same territory
without consulting the existing one. This has eventually developed into a
problem regarding the overlap in the scope of the two user groups and the
resolution was normally sought from the people (more importantly
volunteers) who were not willing this to happen. It should be also noted
that Macedonia is a country with only 2 million inhabitants unlike Brazil's
over 200 million and this has been mentioned numerous times by different
people in the movement to refer to the severity of the problem.
My opinion is that the Affiliations Committee has no vision on the future
of the Wikimedia movement and their main efficiency indicator is the number
of user groups they recognise with no care about the consequencies of the
apparent wrongdoing. They managed to bring the tally to over 100 user
groups and the Wikimedia Foundation even got engaged to celebrate this
achievement, while they did not give a damn about the problems that they
have posed with their light-minded routine. Moreover, when you approach
them with some relevant questions, they simply brush off and respond with a
months-long delay.
In conclusion, the Affiliations Committee is artificially creating problems
as a result of their recognition policy and is seeking resolution from
volunteers that were not consulted at all about the potential
consequencies. This is a waste of volunteer time and efforts for something
that could have easily been prevented. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia
Foundation and some other voices in the movement contribute to this misery
and it is highly unprobable that any complaint to any one in the movement
would pay off.
Best regards,
Kiril
On сре., 13 фев. 2019 г. at 16:13 Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
camelia boban <camelia.boban(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia terça, 12/02/2019
à(s) 11:18:
(...)
In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement, AffCom has
acted as it always does when it receives affiliation requests: it
assesses
the territorial overlap and the declared purpose
of the requests with
others affiliates present in the territory, contacting the already
recognized affiliates to hear from them about any concerns, using the
experience and knowledge on the territory of each of its members.
I suppose this was not in effect back in 2015, when Wiki Education Brazil
was approved, as neither the existing affiliate in Brazil - UG Wikimedia
in Brazil -, nor Wikimedia Portugal, have been consulted about it, even
when it totally overlapped with the territory of the existing affiliate in
Brazil, and was announced by AffCom as having a Lusophone target, therefore
interfering in Portugal as well. Furthermore, at the date it was approved,
Wiki Education Brazil was already in open conflict with the existing
affiliate in Brazil, which makes the approval decision by AffCom absolutely
incomprehensible.
Actually, I really fail to understand why the candidatures to AffCom
continue allowed to be proposed in absolute secrecy, leaving any problems
caused by their approvals to be dealt with by the community after the
problem is already installed. Does not seem a very clever way of acting.
Best,
Paulo - DarwIn
Wikimedia Portugal
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>