Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set out three new criteria:
1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months. 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement. 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.
In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you, M.
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapter_Summary_Matri... 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thematic_Organisation...
Hello,
Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to significantly higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the case?
yours,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set out three new criteria:
- Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months. 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement. 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.
In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you, M.
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Chapter_Summary_Matrix 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix -- "*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
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc. http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official status at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter.
I personally think the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be followed.
It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the results. Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter for collaborations with various partner organisations.
Romaine
2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com:
Hello,
Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to significantly higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the case?
yours,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set out three new criteria:
- Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months. 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement. 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.
In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you, M.
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt er_Summary_Matrix 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix -- "*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
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc. http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
I agree with Lane.
Setting higher criteria is all well and good -- as is expecting boards to be cognizant of these expectations.
But we are dealing with volunteers doing a significant amount of free digital labor and organizing. To set a bar super high in that structure is a lot to expect of people contributing their T&E.
Both Lane and I are part of Wikimedia NYC, a very active chapter that somehow (I believe) manages to meet these criteria amidst almost exponential growth of activities. The administrative burden on both our leadership and membership is heavy, and I am grateful for everyone's pitch in / can do approach and willingness to contribute.
And no, the answer is not to do less events and have less support to institutional partners and various initiatives. That's not practical or good for anyone.
But it brings to mind a recent trip I made where I visited the Wikimedia Deutschland offices. Where there was a whole room (!) of 6 fully set up computers with I am assuming the same number of staff for Event planning alone -- all which I assume are paid positions. That really made me pause in shock. And feel like a bit of an idiot that our chapter does so much without that type of structural support.
So while I understand the idea of these criteria, to have the balance beam heavily weighted on requirements without attendant support is not a workable model.
- Erika Secretary, Wikimedia NYC -- but not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle*
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official status at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter.
I personally think the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be followed.
It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the results. Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter for collaborations with various partner organisations.
Romaine
2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com:
Hello,
Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to
significantly
higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the case?
yours,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <
maorx@wikimedia.org.ve>
wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria,
which we
will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have
set
out three new criteria:
- Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
events; to
balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous
activity; and
to conduct programs and events at least once every two months. 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
and
events before executing them; to measure the results of programs,
projects,
and events against those targets; and to report on those results to
the
Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement. 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups
and
organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
institutions,
and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve
content
on Wikimedia projects.
In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
Affiliations
Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations
will
continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and
limitations of
these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation
affiliate
models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results
and
feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential
revisions
to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you, M.
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt er_Summary_Matrix 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix -- "*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
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la
Fundación
Wikimedia, Inc. http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I might suggest distinguishing the resourcing issue from the chapter status criteria.
I am of the view that expecting volunteers to be available for the same kind and quantity of work as paid part-time or full-time staff is unrealistic, that WMF should provide a smoother glide slope from all-volunteer affiliate to affiliate with first time paid staff, and that WMF should rethink their one-size-fits-all approach of requiring substantial programmatic activity before agreeing to fund any part-time paid staff even for as little as ten hours per month. It seems to me that WMF is limiting its own effectiveness with its current approach of setting such a high bar before agreeing to fund part-time paid staff. But those are issues for WMF staff, not for the Affiliations Committee.
On a slightly different subject, I think that your email helps to illustrate how quantitative rather than qualitative criteria would be helpful in understanding where the thresholds are. To illustrate further:
"Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events." Does "a variety" mean three, five, or ten?
"to balance online and offline projects": are chapters now required to have at least one online and one offline project? Are online and offline projects supposed to be even in number, meaning that if there are three online projects then there must be three offline projects?
"to strive for continuous activity": what is "continuous activity", and is it a goal or a requirement?
"and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.": this seems straightforward.
"Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.": I like this requirement, keeping in mind that goals and targets may be difficult to set, particularly where a program, project, or event is new to an affiliate or a particular audience.
"External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.": how many partnerships are required? How often must partners be engaged in programs?
I like the general approach of the criteria, but quantitative specificity would be helpful.
Pine
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Lane.
Setting higher criteria is all well and good -- as is expecting boards to be cognizant of these expectations.
But we are dealing with volunteers doing a significant amount of free digital labor and organizing. To set a bar super high in that structure is a lot to expect of people contributing their T&E.
Both Lane and I are part of Wikimedia NYC, a very active chapter that somehow (I believe) manages to meet these criteria amidst almost exponential growth of activities. The administrative burden on both our leadership and membership is heavy, and I am grateful for everyone's pitch in / can do approach and willingness to contribute.
And no, the answer is not to do less events and have less support to institutional partners and various initiatives. That's not practical or good for anyone.
But it brings to mind a recent trip I made where I visited the Wikimedia Deutschland offices. Where there was a whole room (!) of 6 fully set up computers with I am assuming the same number of staff for Event planning alone -- all which I assume are paid positions. That really made me pause in shock. And feel like a bit of an idiot that our chapter does so much without that type of structural support.
So while I understand the idea of these criteria, to have the balance beam heavily weighted on requirements without attendant support is not a workable model.
- Erika
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC -- but not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle*
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official
status
at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter.
I personally think the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be followed.
It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the
results.
Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
for
collaborations with various partner organisations.
Romaine
2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com:
Hello,
Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to
significantly
higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that
the
case?
yours,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <
maorx@wikimedia.org.ve>
wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria,
which we
will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter
and
thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we
have
set
out three new criteria:
- Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
events; to
balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous
activity; and
to conduct programs and events at least once every two months. 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
and
events before executing them; to measure the results of programs,
projects,
and events against those targets; and to report on those results to
the
Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement. 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external
groups
and
organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
institutions,
and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve
content
on Wikimedia projects.
In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
Affiliations
Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations
will
continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and
limitations of
these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation
affiliate
models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results
and
feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential
revisions
to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you, M.
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt er_Summary_Matrix 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix -- "*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
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la
Fundación
Wikimedia, Inc. http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, una
organización
sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus
respectivos
propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Lane,
The proposed criteria will apply to new organizations. However, we should all help all affiliates to operate at higher standards, and we're willing and happy to assist with anything affiliates need to grow :-)
El 19/08/2016 a las 05:51 p.m., Lane Rasberry escribió:
Hello,
Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to significantly higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the case?
yours,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set out three new criteria:
1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months. 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement. 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you, M.
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Chapter_Summary_Matrix 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix -- "*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
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc. http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Hi Carlos,
In general, I like the new criteria.
I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about the status of affiliates.
I would also suggest that existing chapters should be evaluated routinely, perhaps in alternate years, to verify that they meet the criteria. If they don't, they can be put on probation for 6 months, and if after that time they still fall below the new standards, then they will be demoted to user group status and can re-apply for chapter status after a year. This would be a way to level the playing field between existing chapters, and user groups who wish to be chapters.
Thanks,
Pine
On Aug 19, 2016 05:36, "Carlos M. Colina" maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set out three new criteria:
- Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months. 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement. 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.
In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you, M.
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Chapter_Summary_Matrix 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix -- "*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
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc. http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Hello Pine,
El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi Carlos,
In general, I like the new criteria.
I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about the status of affiliates.
The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country except for the capital.
If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another story.
On Aug 19, 2016 05:36, "Carlos M. Colina" maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set out three new criteria:
1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months. 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement. 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions to the criteria before they are finalized.
Thank you, M.
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Chapter_Summary_Matrix 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix -- "*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
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc. http://www.wikimediafoundation.org, una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela _______________________________________________ Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Carlos,
As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time, it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new criteria.
Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be chapters.
I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for chapters and thematic organizations.
Pine
El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi Carlos,
In general, I like the new criteria.
I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about the status of affiliates.
The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country except for the capital.
If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another story.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Carlos,
As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time, it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new criteria.
Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be chapters.
I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for chapters and thematic organizations.
Pine
What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine? How is the Wikimedia movement damaged by having chapters which may not universally meet precise quantitative measurements of activity or other criteria? How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying a chapter as a user group?
What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to apply, which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific set of criteria.
As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be clearly defined.
How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying a chapter as a user group?
I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached to already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to existing chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent activity in Wikimedia.
Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or if an especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization, which now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call this "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return its levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather than allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the responsibilities and expectations.
Pine
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense for that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.
I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's the current process?
On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to apply, which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific set of criteria.
As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be clearly defined.
How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying a chapter as a user group?
I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached to already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to existing chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent activity in Wikimedia.
Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or if an especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization, which now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call this "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return its levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather than allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the responsibilities and expectations.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree with Ben.
It is worthwhile understand why existing chapters may not meet these criteria, especially if it is viable/active chapters that fail the criteria, rather than the few dormant chapters who also fail simpler criteria.
I suspect these criteria, which are a good baseline, can be refined in consultation with existing chapters and the broader community.
My biggest concern is that "event" is undefined, and could include meetups of only a few people, mostly regulars, with nn/little impact. That would render this criteria useless, or worse encourage wasted effort to tick the affcom criteria boxes.
And if the activity levels are only maintained in order to obtain chapter status, they will quickly reduce activity levels after chapter status is granted unless there is a funded plan to maintain and grow the chapter after affcom has given the group the nod.
On 22 Aug 2016 03:22, "Ben Creasy" ben@bencreasy.com wrote:
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense for that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.
I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's the current process?
On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to apply, which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific set of criteria.
As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be clearly defined.
How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying a chapter as a user group?
I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege
attached
to already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to existing chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters.
Chapter
status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent activity in Wikimedia.
Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office,
or
if an especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization, which now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call this "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and
it
would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return its levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather than allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the responsibilities and expectations.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi John,
El 22/08/2016 a las 04:50 a.m., John Mark Vandenberg escribió:
I agree with Ben.
It is worthwhile understand why existing chapters may not meet these criteria, especially if it is viable/active chapters that fail the criteria, rather than the few dormant chapters who also fail simpler criteria.
I suspect these criteria, which are a good baseline, can be refined in consultation with existing chapters and the broader community.
That is the idea behind the consultation, to refine it as much as possible with valuable input from everyone
My biggest concern is that "event" is undefined, and could include meetups of only a few people, mostly regulars, with nn/little impact. That would render this criteria useless, or worse encourage wasted effort to tick the affcom criteria boxes.
I totally agree. Meeting for coffee, albeit cool, should be followed by activities or planning of activities that result in something valuable for the movement.
And if the activity levels are only maintained in order to obtain chapter status, they will quickly reduce activity levels after chapter status is granted unless there is a funded plan to maintain and grow the chapter after affcom has given the group the nod.
On 22 Aug 2016 03:22, "Ben Creasy" ben@bencreasy.com wrote:
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense for that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.
I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's the current process?
On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to apply, which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific set of criteria.
As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be clearly defined.
How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying a chapter as a user group?
I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege
attached
to already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to existing chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters.
Chapter
status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent activity in Wikimedia.
Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office,
or
if an especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization, which now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call this "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and
it
would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return its levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather than allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the responsibilities and expectations.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense for that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
Hi Ben,
The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Eligibility_Criter...
That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working towards.
Regards,
Chris Keating User:The Land
We need to focus on building communities
To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to assist user groups to expand...
I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others into submission.
I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference. Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers
On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
for
that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
Hi Ben,
The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_ 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working towards.
Regards,
Chris Keating User:The Land _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Why do we need to balance numbers against what matters, what is wrong with trust and assuming good faith its made wikipedia the special thing it is, we didnt need qualifications to be part of it, we didnt have quotas, we could all do as little or as much as we liked, every effort mattered it created something great, something beyond what had every been done before, it brought together and nurtured the differences it grew from those beginnings not because of numbers. So why change what makes us great, why put numbers in place of everything else why even try to balance numbers with what really matters because its what matters that important its what matters is our goal.
We are because someone once imagined a world where the sum of all knowledge could shared freely, not because someone once imagined a number and made everyone else reach that number
On 23 August 2016 at 01:23, James Heilman <j jmh649@gmail.com> wrote:
I see it a bit both ways. I would hope that the designation "chapter" and "user group" reflect at least something about the capacity of the organization in question. And organizations change over time so why should not their designation? I also agree that not all that matters can be measured / quantified. We still need to do what matters even if a nice little number cannot be attached to it. The question is how do we balance these two.
Jaes
On 23 August 2016 at 08:13, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
We need to focus on building communities
To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to assist user groups to expand...
I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others into submission.
I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference. Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers
On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which
do
not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
for
that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
Hi Ben,
The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/ Eligibility_Criteria
That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working towards.
Regards,
Chris Keating User:The Land _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
This is beautifully said. I just love it.
Thank you!
On Aug 22, 2016, at 8:13 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
We need to focus on building communities
To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to assist user groups to expand...
I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others into submission.
I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference. Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers
On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
for
that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
Hi Ben,
The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_ 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working towards.
Regards,
Chris Keating User:The Land _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree that Affcom, as well as WMF, could do more to support affiliates in all stages of development. However, the subject of this thread is the criteria for chapter and thematic organization status.
Chapter or thematic organization status comes with some privelidges like the right to vote for affiliate-elected WMF board seats, and the right to send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference unlike the 1 delegate allowed per user group. With the privelidges should come some responsibilities, like meeting the criteria for chapter or thematic org status on an ongoing basis.
As an organization that may want to become a chapter someday, Cascadia Wikimedians needs clarity and specificity about the criteria for chapter status. I ask AffCom to keep this in mind as it continues to consider and develop the criteria for chapter and thematic org status.
Pine
If an affiliate wants guidence to becoming a chapter thats great and asking for that help as well a receiving it is a positive, yet that is not whats being asked or discussed it about defining numbers and punishments for those that dont achieve those numbers. We can achieve success within ourselves without bringing others down. WP succeeds by working together to help everyone improve what they are doing.
The final outcome for Cascadia Wikimedians become a chapter should not be dictated by numbers but the communities desires and those should not be measured against what others have done, because each chapter is unique with their own challenges, their own cultures, their own needs and a thousand others factors. The only measure should be trust and an assumption of good faith, hurdles only measure how high someone can jump not how high they help others jump affiliates are there to help others achieve, Affcom is there to help affiliates achieve that.
On 23 August 2016 at 10:37, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that Affcom, as well as WMF, could do more to support affiliates in all stages of development. However, the subject of this thread is the criteria for chapter and thematic organization status.
Chapter or thematic organization status comes with some privelidges like the right to vote for affiliate-elected WMF board seats, and the right to send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference unlike the 1 delegate allowed per user group. With the privelidges should come some responsibilities, like meeting the criteria for chapter or thematic org status on an ongoing basis.
As an organization that may want to become a chapter someday, Cascadia Wikimedians needs clarity and specificity about the criteria for chapter status. I ask AffCom to keep this in mind as it continues to consider and develop the criteria for chapter and thematic org status.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to assist user groups to expand...
Well, yes - and (at least so far as I can tell from my point of view) there is a huge shortage of support for user groups and smaller chapters.
However, there are some chapters that genuinely don't exist any more and there is not much point having organisations that have effectively shut up shop listed as Wikimedia chapters.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
for
that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
Hi Ben,
The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_ 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working towards.
As of this year, a process does exist, and is reflected here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_n...
(perhaps a link to this should be added to the AffCom nav-box.)
This process is being followed, right now, to review the status of inactive and non-compliant chapters, at long last.
A.
On 23 Aug 2016, at 11:48, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com mailto:chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
for
that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to meeting standards or losing their status.
Hi Ben,
The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_ 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working towards.
As of this year, a process does exist, and is reflected here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_n... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says: "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)" There's no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in this document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group agreements, but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this process document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I won't go into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it fairer to all parties.
This process is being followed, right now, to review the status of inactive and non-compliant chapters, at long last.
That's good news.
Thanks, Mike
On 24 August 2016 at 22:50, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says: "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)" There's no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in this document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group agreements, but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this process document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I won't go into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it fairer to all parties.
I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process, and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough (from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.
Best,
Delphine
I agree with Delphine. And I think it's worth to mention that the immediate termination is for "serious and urgent cases" only and that there is a more partnering process for less serious cases.
Alice.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 22:50, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says: "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately
according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)"
There's no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in
this document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group agreements, but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this process document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I won't go into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it fairer to all parties.
I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process, and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough (from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.
Best,
Delphine
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear all,
Allow me, from my personal experiences, to bring into conscience what it means to "be" or to represent a Wikimedia affiliate, whether it is a chapter, a thematic organization or a WM user group.
It is a great honour to be active in a Wikimedia affiliate.
Affiliates, a chapter for example, are trusted with the use of important trademarks and logos. For many people who are unfamiliar with the movement, a chapter is the first contact point with everything regarding "Wikipedia". Government and other institutions cooperate with chapters. The people responsible in a chapter have to decide on budgets and reglements and many other things, with effect to people inside and outside the chapter.
But what if a chapter fails?
Think of a museum that wants to cooperate with "Wikipedia" in a specific language, and approaches the chapter related. If the chapter fails to reply, if the museum never gets an answer of any kind even after several attempts via different communication channels - that is a catastrophe for the reputation of the chapter, but also for the Wikipedia language version in question.
Or think of a volunteer who wants to organize something on an international scale, and invites other chapters (and affiliates) to join. What if her inclusionist approach is rewarded with deafening silence because chapter representants are inactive but too proud to admit that?
I am a member of WMNL and WMDE. But even if I were not, these organizations and the WMF represent me and my work on Wikipedia to the outside world. I want them to be accountable to minimum standards - I think that I deserve that as a Wikipedia volunteer. And I want to travel to other countries and meet museum people and hear from them: "Wikimedia? Yes, we work together with a Wikimedia user group here, those folks do great a great job."
It cannot be surprising that I was very happy to read Carlos' mail. I'm not sure whether we are quite there yet, and one issue remains how to effectively support affiliates even more, and how to provide appropriate resources. But - whether such investions make sense depends also from the affiliate.
Kind regards Ziko
Am Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 schrieb Delphine Ménard :
On 24 August 2016 at 22:50, Michael Peel <email@mikepeel.net javascript:;> wrote:
This process seems to be very harsh as written. For example, it says: "an organization’s recognition may be terminated immediately
according to the group's agreement (without Board review or appeal)"
There's no mention of any sort of ombudsperson, or appeal process in
this document. Presumably this is delegated to the individual group agreements, but it would be good to see that explicitly mentioned in this process document. There are other examples elsewhere in the process that I won't go into here. But I think this process needs rewriting to make it fairer to all parties.
I don't think it's harsh. Experience proves that "trying to get in touch" and "trying to put together a plan" is a very lengthy process, and takes months, if not years. In short, every attempt I have seen at actually making sure a chapter / group was really inexistent before entering the last phase of derecognition has been more than thorough (from many emails to activating personal contacts to everything you can think of to get in touch with people). You do have to draw the line somewhere though, and at some point get "harsh" and have hard deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think it's important that we know to "terminate", because dormant entities often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew.
Best,
Delphine
-- @notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Within this context, if as Pine mentions, an especially strong community organizer leaves the chapter, or if there is a huge shift in leadership, the chapter could go through a lot of growing pains, good or bad.
How exactly does the Affiliates committee support this issue? What specific support is available to chapters who are transitioning or having problems?
It seems like renaming something from X to Y is not doing much to provide solutions.
- Erika
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle*
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying a chapter as a user group?
I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached to already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to existing chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent activity in Wikimedia.
Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or if an especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization, which now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call this "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return its levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather than allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the responsibilities and expectations.
Hi Erika,
If a highly valuable community organizer leaves a chapter, or it changes it leadership radically, it's not the end of the world. It has happened to many of us. And the solution would not be simply "renaming" it from Chapter to UG -that's not going to happen.
We have supported chapters that have had issues in the past. But since this is a more radical change, a better defined strategy is needed. And we're working on it, based on our experience so far, not just as AffCom members but with the experience acquired as members of different affiliates. Suggestions and all valuable input is always welcome, too :-)
Thanks!
El 22/08/2016 a las 08:50 a.m., Brill Lyle escribió:
Within this context, if as Pine mentions, an especially strong community organizer leaves the chapter, or if there is a huge shift in leadership, the chapter could go through a lot of growing pains, good or bad.
How exactly does the Affiliates committee support this issue? What specific support is available to chapters who are transitioning or having problems?
It seems like renaming something from X to Y is not doing much to provide solutions.
- Erika
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle*
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying a chapter as a user group?
I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached to already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to existing chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent activity in Wikimedia.
Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or if an especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization, which now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call this "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return its levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather than allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the responsibilities and expectations.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi, I appreciate the effort, it's interesting but there should more flexibility in my opinion.
All is relative. Probably in Estonia, to do an outdoor activity, people must wait more time than buying a loaf of bread in Venezuela. Depending on the variable everyone has more difficulties than another, but it's different to divide the world into good and bad.
Some criteria should be meet, I agree, but the flexibility and more a matrix of criteria makes sense.
The biggest problem in a general concept of rules is to introduce global rules that can kill the diversity.
They will help to have standardized and well defined entities and easy to monitor, but also similar and undifferentiated entities.
To measure a maturity of a model the best would be to introduce a combination of variables and not only three. It would be good to have, let's say, three different parameters for each areas to have at least 9 different standards as a combination.
I think that a more flexible criteria can be a valid support.
Kind regards
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Hello Pine,
El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi Carlos,
In general, I like the new criteria.
I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about the status of affiliates.
The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country except for the capital.
If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another story.
--
Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
First of all, thanks to the AffCom for defining the criteria. I am positively surprised and impressed that they managed to do it since Wikimania when I was told in a private chat that I could forget about having my user group recognised as a chapter this year. Thank you all, who made this possible in such a short time!
I've taken the pains of reading the whole discussion and it seems that there are two main points of discussion: - quantitative vs qualitative criteria and - the possibility to transform chapters in user groups and disband user groups.
I strongly oppose to only quantitative criteria. Some have to be in place and I expect the AffCom to define meaningful quantitative criteria for the recognition of user groups and chapters, but I expect that a group of serious and experienced community members has the right to overwrite the quantitative criteria if considered needed. This way the communities will know what to aim at, but if the standard aims are not suitable for the cultural and/or political context of the place where they act, exceptions must be allowed.
Organisation should be transformable and the criteria should hold for everyone. There already is a process of deciding who is allowed to send representatives to the Wikimedia Conference and something similar should be set up for the upgrading and downgrading of organisations.
This said, I would gladly see user groups and chapters getting as similar rights and responsibilities as possible. I do not understand why a rather inactive chapter can send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference, have a vote for affiliate-elected WMF seats and be allowed to sign the trademark agreement, while a very active user group can send 1 delegate, cannot decide on the future of the WMF BoT and has to go through a tedious process every time they wish to use the Wikimedia logo and name. This way aspiring user groups are being deprived of possibilities to develop and by doing that to enable the creation of more free content even faster. Imagine a chapter with five active Wikimedians and a user group with ten. These exist.
Best regards, Nikola / User:Lord Bumbury Wikimedians of Bulgaria User Group
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I appreciate the effort, it's interesting but there should more flexibility in my opinion.
All is relative. Probably in Estonia, to do an outdoor activity, people must wait more time than buying a loaf of bread in Venezuela. Depending on the variable everyone has more difficulties than another, but it's different to divide the world into good and bad.
Some criteria should be meet, I agree, but the flexibility and more a matrix of criteria makes sense.
The biggest problem in a general concept of rules is to introduce global rules that can kill the diversity.
They will help to have standardized and well defined entities and easy to monitor, but also similar and undifferentiated entities.
To measure a maturity of a model the best would be to introduce a combination of variables and not only three. It would be good to have, let's say, three different parameters for each areas to have at least 9 different standards as a combination.
I think that a more flexible criteria can be a valid support.
Kind regards
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Hello Pine,
El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi Carlos,
In general, I like the new criteria.
I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so
that
there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy
about
the status of affiliates.
The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the
situation
of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country except for the capital.
If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another story.
--
Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks to everyone for all the feedback. AffCom will take on consideration all your inputs.
As Delphine and Alice have said, the idea is not to create a summary procedure where an affiliate doesn't get a goal and inmediately the recognition is removed. Sorry if it sounded so strict but rules always sounds like that: if A then B. As Asaf said, we are trying to find out the best model to try this criteria to be accomplished without creating extra stress to our community. Furthermore, AffCom will work in good will, that means that we'll always try to see how to mantain the existence of an affiliate before giving the recomendation of derecognizing it.
@Ilario, if you read carefully every criteria is complex itself and includes many variables, your argument is exactly why Affcom declined to have only quantifiable variables, since the little space that creates an open criteria gives our committee the capacity of analysing case by case and keeps the diversity of our movement. In other words, the AffCom and every chapter will introduce the color to the black and white ;)
It's worth to say that according to our previous analysis, the most of current chapters and ThOrg accomplishes the criteria, the most of affiliates of this kind just need to continue the good work they (we) are doing.
Regards!
2016-08-25 10:23 GMT-05:00 Nikola Kalchev nikola.kalchev@gmail.com:
First of all, thanks to the AffCom for defining the criteria. I am positively surprised and impressed that they managed to do it since Wikimania when I was told in a private chat that I could forget about having my user group recognised as a chapter this year. Thank you all, who made this possible in such a short time!
I've taken the pains of reading the whole discussion and it seems that there are two main points of discussion:
- quantitative vs qualitative criteria and
- the possibility to transform chapters in user groups and disband user
groups.
I strongly oppose to only quantitative criteria. Some have to be in place and I expect the AffCom to define meaningful quantitative criteria for the recognition of user groups and chapters, but I expect that a group of serious and experienced community members has the right to overwrite the quantitative criteria if considered needed. This way the communities will know what to aim at, but if the standard aims are not suitable for the cultural and/or political context of the place where they act, exceptions must be allowed.
Organisation should be transformable and the criteria should hold for everyone. There already is a process of deciding who is allowed to send representatives to the Wikimedia Conference and something similar should be set up for the upgrading and downgrading of organisations.
This said, I would gladly see user groups and chapters getting as similar rights and responsibilities as possible. I do not understand why a rather inactive chapter can send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference, have a vote for affiliate-elected WMF seats and be allowed to sign the trademark agreement, while a very active user group can send 1 delegate, cannot decide on the future of the WMF BoT and has to go through a tedious process every time they wish to use the Wikimedia logo and name. This way aspiring user groups are being deprived of possibilities to develop and by doing that to enable the creation of more free content even faster. Imagine a chapter with five active Wikimedians and a user group with ten. These exist.
Best regards, Nikola / User:Lord Bumbury Wikimedians of Bulgaria User Group
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I appreciate the effort, it's interesting but there should more flexibility in my opinion.
All is relative. Probably in Estonia, to do an outdoor activity, people must wait more time than buying a loaf of bread in Venezuela. Depending on the variable everyone has more difficulties than another, but it's different to divide the world into good and bad.
Some criteria should be meet, I agree, but the flexibility and more a matrix of criteria makes sense.
The biggest problem in a general concept of rules is to introduce global rules that can kill the diversity.
They will help to have standardized and well defined entities and easy to monitor, but also similar and undifferentiated entities.
To measure a maturity of a model the best would be to introduce a combination of variables and not only three. It would be good to have, let's say, three different parameters for each areas to have at least 9 different standards as a combination.
I think that a more flexible criteria can be a valid support.
Kind regards
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Carlos M. Colina <maorx@wikimedia.org.ve
wrote:
Hello Pine,
El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi Carlos,
In general, I like the new criteria.
I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so
that
there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are
meeting
these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy
about
the status of affiliates.
The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the
situation
of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country except for the capital.
If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another story.
--
Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Affiliations Committee mailing list AffCom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affcom
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org