Greetings,
Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the recognition process itself concludes.
An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters, thematic org, or user group moving forward.
More info - including specific liaison assignments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
Good news, Greg! This is a great initiative which can provide a lot of support especially for younger affiliations. I'm curious how it will be accepted and what's the kind of support affiliations ask for. Please keep us in the loop.
Alice.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the recognition process itself concludes.
An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters, thematic org, or user group moving forward.
More info - including specific liaison assignments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair Wikimedia Affiliations Committee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks AffComm - it is great to see this moving forward.
I have added this info to the Organisational Development page on Meta;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development
Chris
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the recognition process itself concludes.
An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters, thematic org, or user group moving forward.
More info - including specific liaison assignments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair Wikimedia Affiliations Committee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Greg, this is good to hear, and a fine reason to broaden the committee.
And thanks for the reminder about that page, Chris: it is a handy starting point. On May 29, 2014 7:45 AM, "Chris Keating" chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks AffComm - it is great to see this moving forward.
I have added this info to the Organisational Development page on Meta;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development
Chris
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement
affiliates
(chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the recognition process itself concludes.
An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to
help
with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and
supporting
successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison,
who
will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While
an
affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will
then
be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time.
We
welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters, thematic org, or user group moving forward.
More info - including specific liaison assignments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair Wikimedia Affiliations Committee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that affiliates find useful.
It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all do with affiliates and publish the information.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the recognition process itself concludes.
An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters, thematic org, or user group moving forward.
More info - including specific liaison assignments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair Wikimedia Affiliations Committee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think this is a good idea, but Im interested in knowing if AffComm intends to have a more responsive way to address petitions for affiliation. There are a number of applications stuck in limbo with no indication of how and when they will be resolved.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:36:09 -0400 From: sydney.poore@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that affiliates find useful.
It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all do with affiliates and publish the information.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the recognition process itself concludes.
An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters, thematic org, or user group moving forward.
More info - including specific liaison assignments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair Wikimedia Affiliations Committee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The short answer is that we are reviewing the recognition and renewal process for user groups right now and ways to expedite the process further. Now a longer answer for those that are interested... :)
This is an almost constant activity for AffCom and several small changes continue to be made. The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition process to be shortened to a few weeks. We are not yet satisfied with the process, and the introduction of liaisons is just one of the steps we are taking to resolve feedback on how we can do better. For example, by maintaining contact with affiliates after their recognition, we are better able to discover how that process was perceived. There are several other complicated issues that have arisen with the initial dozen user groups (which was expected) which we are also working through to help with the overall process - such as logo design and usage, process for signing paperwork, input and conflict with existing affiliates, and the wonderful diversity of types of user groups and their different needs.
We have learned a lot since the new movement affiliation model was introduced, and we are applying what we have learned as quickly as busy volunteers can. As we formalize what changes are being made and what steps we are taking, many of AffCom's members (myself included) are personally committed to making sure folks know in as transparent a way as possible. As was the case with the user group logo RFC, we are also committed to getting large community input when possible, and always welcome and discuss direct feedback.
We are steadily moving through any backlog of user group requests. With a couple of complicated exceptions I do not want to go into on a public list - the remaining groups "in limbo" are mostly groups that AffCom is waiting to hear back from. If any group has not heard from us in the past month, I encourage them to reach out to us directly - AffCom@lists.wikimedia.org
We will also be working to cleanup the various list of affiliates in discussion as it does not accurately reflect groups actively in discussion. There will also be improved documentation on the exact process being used to help remove some confusion on who is responsible for which aspect of the recognition process.
On a more personal note. A lot of what we are introducing this year was initiated by my predecessor, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson. As many of you know, we tragically lost her a few hours after AffCom initially approved this year's plans. Thanks to WMF, I was able to attend Cindy's memorial service and speak with her family. I accepted the Vice-Chair role with a commitment to Cindy's family and AffCom to do my best to help us fulfill Cindy's vision. While it will take AffCom longer to address these issues than it would have with Cindy's wisdom and energy - please know that we have a very sincere desire to continue to improve and serve the movement in the ways we believe are best.
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
I think this is a good idea, but Im interested in knowing if AffComm intends to have a more responsive way to address petitions for affiliation. There are a number of applications stuck in limbo with no indication of how and when they will be resolved.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:36:09 -0400 From: sydney.poore@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that affiliates find useful.
It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all
do
with affiliates and publish the information.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com
wrote:
Greetings,
Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement
affiliates
(chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once
the
recognition process itself concludes.
An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to
help
with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and
supporting
successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary
liaison, who
will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available
if
the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations.
While an
affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at
least
one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to
the
committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will
then
be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any
time. We
welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters, thematic org, or user group moving forward.
More info - including specific liaison assignments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
-greg aka varnent Vice-Chair Wikimedia Affiliations Committee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Quick question:
The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition process to be shortened to a few weeks.
When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should take no more than 15 minutes. What currently takes time?
Sam
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions? If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
We are moving toward a process that involves 1-2 people primarily and then a full vote by the committee (which right now procedurally takes one week).
From my perspective, the delays are often related to confusion over the
process, or failure to actually initiate things with AffCom. We have about a dozen groups in discussion, but who have not yet made contact with AffCom. Sometimes people are timid or confused about taking the first step of saying "I (or we) are the contacts for this group and here is what we would like to do." We are looking into that more and working on some solutions. I think right now a lot of the problem is related to perceptions over the process and doubts over the value of completing it (as simple as it may be). Sometimes it has been a matter as simple as finalizing the wording of the user group agreement, which gets better each time based on the feedback and efforts to address the needs.
If the process had no checks or balances, a few groups would have already been approved that would have been problematic and the desire has been to avoid the need to retract recognition of a group. As we know - once something is out there - it is very hard to pull back. We are trying to find the right balance between providing the right resources and motivations for becoming a user group - and prevent abuse of the process which could then lower the perceived value of the user group model - and potentially the Wikimedia brand. The discussion around the logo is one example of trying to find that balance. The groups would like some equality around usage of the trademarks, and the chapters/thorgs would like some protection of the brand to not harm them when there are geographical overlaps - and also not burden the user groups with the same responsibilities of the chapters/thorgs in regards to media relations.
My personal hunch is that the more user groups that apply, the more we will discover the hurdles and overcome them - which will improve the process overall. I think what is most helpful is to ask for some patience while we try to address concerns and figure out the quickest possible process - but encourage as many interested groups to come forward as possible. It is through those discussions that we are learning the most and best able to find solutions. Really, my biggest request, would be for interested user groups to contact us and officially ask to become a user group - the more - the better in my humble opinion. Don't worry about the Meta pages or whatever, we will help with that, just contact us ( affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) and get the process going.
We are also trying to improve the documentation, communication, and marketing of the different models. I think a lot of people do not really understand that we intend for it to be a simple process, and that it is NOT the same as the chapter or ThOrg process. Some of that confusion is because a lot of the early applicants hope to one day become a chapter or ThOrg, so that has externally come off as a more thorough process. We are already trying to make things like the AffCom page easier to navigate and more visually appealing. Basically we are following Grants Dept's lead and Heather W's example. :) Right now the user group page looks complicated and confusing - hopefully that will change soon. Here are some examples of where we are moving toward: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Twitter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
That is my perspective and opinion - others on the committee may see it differently. :)
-greg aka varnent
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
being
available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
for
at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions? If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
being
available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
for
at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions? If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
Yes - I wasn't entirely precise in my description - the process is lead by the one or two person (confusingly also called liaisons) assigned to the case and the rest of the committee allowed to weigh in if there are any ambiguities or there are any concerns. In extreme cases at the end of the process, but generally at the various intermediate stages.
In practice, the final resolution phase is where most time could be saved as that is mostly a structural legacy of housing the process at a committee that makes public decisions via resolutions;but we try to work out most issues and concerns beforehand. Making sure that everyone had a time to do the extra due diligence in addition to the liaisons themselves adds some time, but can help us avoid recognising groups that are not made up of long term Wikimedians, are possibly more interested in gaining money, respect or padding their CVs than furthering the mission or groups that are not going to stay together as a group for any meaningful amount of time.
(One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process' time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they are and what they want to do. And also, that my fellow AffCom volunteers are doing a lot - not necessarily all inside AffCom -, often having multiple responsibilities inside the movement, in addition to having demanding jobs or families. This means a couple of things, including the fact that time is limited --- e.g. if a volunteer sends an e-mail in the evening before going to bed, even if there is a very quick reply, they will only be able to react the next evening [~24 hours later] ---; the shared desire to simplify our processes, and that we can use all the help we can get to achieve the goals we set ourselves.)
Again, a fuller picture with roles is given at the graph I shared in the previous e-mail, which is as of now non-narrated, but part of the project to increase transparency around the process and to use as a sort of metric to aim for and improve over time.
Best regards, Bence
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process' time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they are and what they want to do.That has not been our (Wiki Borregos) experience. In fact, responses from AffComm have been quite negative even though we have been very active and very clear on who we are and what we do. We have been stuck with"its complicated" since last year.
From: bdamokos@gmail.com Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 21:18:24 +0200 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
being
available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
for
at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions? If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
Yes - I wasn't entirely precise in my description - the process is lead by the one or two person (confusingly also called liaisons) assigned to the case and the rest of the committee allowed to weigh in if there are any ambiguities or there are any concerns. In extreme cases at the end of the process, but generally at the various intermediate stages.
In practice, the final resolution phase is where most time could be saved as that is mostly a structural legacy of housing the process at a committee that makes public decisions via resolutions;but we try to work out most issues and concerns beforehand. Making sure that everyone had a time to do the extra due diligence in addition to the liaisons themselves adds some time, but can help us avoid recognising groups that are not made up of long term Wikimedians, are possibly more interested in gaining money, respect or padding their CVs than furthering the mission or groups that are not going to stay together as a group for any meaningful amount of time.
(One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process' time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they are and what they want to do. And also, that my fellow AffCom volunteers are doing a lot - not necessarily all inside AffCom -, often having multiple responsibilities inside the movement, in addition to having demanding jobs or families. This means a couple of things, including the fact that time is limited --- e.g. if a volunteer sends an e-mail in the evening before going to bed, even if there is a very quick reply, they will only be able to react the next evening [~24 hours later] ---; the shared desire to simplify our processes, and that we can use all the help we can get to achieve the goals we set ourselves.)
Again, a fuller picture with roles is given at the graph I shared in the previous e-mail, which is as of now non-narrated, but part of the project to increase transparency around the process and to use as a sort of metric to aim for and improve over time.
Best regards, Bence
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the process along.
-greg
We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months. This seems to work a lot faster.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400 From: gregory.varnum@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the process along.
-greg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Leigh,
As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)
M.
El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months. This seems to work a lot faster.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400 From: gregory.varnum@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the process along.
-greg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
OK so then why no action, no communication.... until I write something here?
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:52:40 +0300 From: maorx@wikimedia.org.ve To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Hi Leigh,
As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)
M.
El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months. This seems to work a lot faster.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400 From: gregory.varnum@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the process along.
-greg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Leigh,
Actually, we were discussing your group's application even before your writing here. I do apologize for the lack of communication or clarity, although there was no news to communicate.
In general, I would advise everyone to be bold in following the recommendation that is on the Meta page to send us a friendly reminder if they are waiting for us to respond. It helps us keep on top of things, and can speed up the process. (Bringing up the issue repeatedly on public mailing lists, and involving further WMF bodies usually slows down the process even if it might seem like a good idea, and even though it might actually be a good idea in a very small minority of cases.)
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
OK so then why no action, no communication.... until I write something here?
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:52:40 +0300 From: maorx@wikimedia.org.ve To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Hi Leigh,
As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)
M.
El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year
now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months. This seems to work a lot faster.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400 From: gregory.varnum@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki
Borregos
application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on
this
public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing
it
actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the process along.
-greg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wonderful! I look forward to hearing something in the next weeks.
From: bdamokos@gmail.com Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 00:18:02 +0200 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Hi Leigh,
Actually, we were discussing your group's application even before your writing here. I do apologize for the lack of communication or clarity, although there was no news to communicate.
In general, I would advise everyone to be bold in following the recommendation that is on the Meta page to send us a friendly reminder if they are waiting for us to respond. It helps us keep on top of things, and can speed up the process. (Bringing up the issue repeatedly on public mailing lists, and involving further WMF bodies usually slows down the process even if it might seem like a good idea, and even though it might actually be a good idea in a very small minority of cases.)
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
OK so then why no action, no communication.... until I write something here?
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:52:40 +0300 From: maorx@wikimedia.org.ve To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
Hi Leigh,
As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)
M.
El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year
now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months. This seems to work a lot faster.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400 From: gregory.varnum@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki
Borregos
application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on
this
public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing
it
actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the process along.
-greg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Bence -
I'd encourage you to not really factor in 'could this help someone get a quick grant and run?' in to your decisionmaking processes. The FDC requires a multiyear track record of successful largescale program implementation before considering a grant, and I'd think if a UG had that strong a track record, their track record would speak for itself (actually, are UG's eligible for FDC grants? I don't know offhand.) The GAC doesn't require any formal recognition whatsoever, and we've pretty regularly given grants to individuals, groups of people with no official status, mission-aligned but non-Wikimedia orgs, and all sorts of Wikimedia orgs. Speaking entirely for myself, I don't think that being a recognized UG (or equally, not being one,) would effect my recommendation about whether or not to approve a PEG grant whatsoever.
I suspect the same is true for most other active GAC members given the relatively low bar required for UG status - we'll be paying way more attention at the details of the grant and the applicant(s) than on whether they have AffCom recognition. I'd definitely rather give a grant to four well-established Wikimedians with no official status than four less well-established Wikimedians who happen to be a recognized user group all things being equal, and I suspect the same is true of other GAC members. We definitely take people's previous histories in to account when considering whether or not to make a grant, but I don't think being an officially recognized user group would make a group of people meaningfully more likely to get a grant than a group of people with an equivalent track record without that status.
Although usually some form of history with the projects - or at least a strong endorsement from someone with a solid history with the projects - is needed to secure a sizable grant, we give out grants to individuals, groups of individuals that are not officially recognized, organizations aligned with our values that don't have Wikimedia affiliate status, and all kinds of other entities all the time, and I've never heard a GAC member express reservations about a particular grant based on whether or not a group of people were a recognized UG or not. Moreover, I'd be pretty surprised to hear someone do so.
We'd love to receive any and every solid proposal for a mission aligned grant, whether it comes from an individual, a group of three friends, a recognized usergroup, or a chapter or thorg that doesn't yet qualify for FDC funding (or that seeks funding for a project that the GAC can grant that the FDC can't - political advocacy is the only thing that comes to mind.) If anyone reading this who has a cool idea that can be facilitated by a PEG grant and advance the Wikimedia mission, Please come visit us :) We approve most grants that we deal with, and work hard with applicants to get grants in to approvable states if they aren't initially so: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Hi Leigh,
As Greg just said it, we are all aware that your application has more complications. We are doing the best we can to speed the process up, but the AffCom is not the only actor involved in our investigations, as it is with other cases. We also know that you have included the WMF Board on your communications, and let me remind you that WUG recognitions do not depend on the WMF Board, as the AffCom has a mandate from it to recognize those groups seeking to affiliate. -and more than that, there are two Board Liaisons on the AffCom mailing list, so all the communication between us has been read by them. I don't think is necessary to send two copies of the same e-mail to the same people :-)
M.
El 29/05/2014 10:31 p.m., Leigh Thelmadatter escribió:
We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year
now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months. This seems to work a lot faster.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
From: gregory.varnum@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the process along.
-greg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos M. Colina Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
other active GAC members given the relatively low bar required for UG status - we'll be paying way more attention at the details of the grant and the applicant(s) than on whether they have AffCom recognition. I'd definitely rather give a grant to four well-established Wikimedians with no official status than four less well-established Wikimedians who happen to be a recognized user group all things being equal, and I suspect the same is true of other GAC members. We definitely take people's previous histories in to account when considering whether or not to make a grant, but I don't think being an officially recognized user group would make a group of people meaningfully more likely to get a grant than a group of people with an equivalent track record without that status.
Although usually some form of history with the projects - or at least a strong endorsement from someone with a solid history with the projects - is needed to secure a sizable grant, we give out grants to individuals, groups of individuals that are not officially recognized, organizations aligned with our values that don't have Wikimedia affiliate status, and all kinds of other entities all the time, and I've never heard a GAC member express reservations about a particular grant based on whether or not a group of people were a recognized UG or not. Moreover, I'd be pretty surprised to hear someone do so.
We'd love to receive any and every solid proposal for a mission aligned grant, whether it comes from an individual, a group of three friends, a recognized usergroup, or a chapter or thorg that doesn't yet qualify for FDC funding (or that seeks funding for a project that the GAC can grant that the FDC can't - political advocacy is the only thing that comes to mind.) If anyone reading this who has a cool idea that can be facilitated by a PEG grant and advance the Wikimedia mission, Please come visit us :) We approve most grants that we deal with, and work hard with applicants to
Thanks Kevin with this explanation. I have a similar understanding of the grantmaking landscape at Wikimedia. There are groups, or individuals that every once in a while contact AffCom that are not that aware of the realities of the grants process (i.e. that only real projects get funded, but they do get funded regardless of status). While they do not reach the stage of getting to the various grants programmes, or being recognised as an affiliate, that does not mean they do not exist.
Best regards, Bence
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this. Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs? I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
It looks like the main steps are
a) appointing a liaison b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many) c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)
with an optional step of d) reviewing bylaws
Nathan's idea is a good one. LangCom does something like this for handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter, informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically never exercised) to override over the next few days.
Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:
0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.
1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.
2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming the liaison. They can approve the group, recommend it for further review, or reject it as incomplete.
3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for discussion by the committee.
3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the result (approve or reject) and the reviewer. This can be done in batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its liaison.
This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was the original goal. I know that we currently require separately 4) signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark uses to groups that have been approved.
A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition process, as far as I can see. AffCom can separately engage groups to help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.
Regards, Sam
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Quick question:
The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition process to be shortened to a few weeks.
When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should take no more than 15 minutes. What currently takes time?
Sam
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
SJ,
Aside from the questions being on Meta (which they soon will), and the one-person authority - this is very close to the process we are working from now.
Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a request comes in, someone is assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that person feels okay or doesn't have questions, they send the info to the group, post a resolution, and we vote.
Realistically, getting a response to the questions is oddly a much lengthier process than I would have imagined. We usually try to wait for confirmation before we post announcements of approvals on-lists, and some groups do not consider themselves approved until the legal paperwork is signed. I am working on some Meta-wiki based forms (similar to what grants does) to allow folks to start the process there rather than via email.
-greg
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this. Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs? I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
It looks like the main steps are
a) appointing a liaison b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many) c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)
with an optional step of d) reviewing bylaws
Nathan's idea is a good one. LangCom does something like this for handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter, informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically never exercised) to override over the next few days.
Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:
- Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.
Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.
Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
the liaison. They can approve the group, recommend it for further review, or reject it as incomplete.
3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for discussion by the committee.
3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the result (approve or reject) and the reviewer. This can be done in batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its liaison.
This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was the original goal. I know that we currently require separately 4) signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark uses to groups that have been approved.
A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition process, as far as I can see. AffCom can separately engage groups to help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.
Regards, Sam
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
being
available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
for
at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Quick question:
The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition process to be shortened to a few weeks.
When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should take no more than 15 minutes. What currently takes time?
Sam
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Sam,
El 29/05/2014 10:18 p.m., Sam Klein escribió:
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this. Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs? I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
It looks like the main steps are
a) appointing a liaison b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many) c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)
with an optional step of d) reviewing bylaws
Nathan's idea is a good one. LangCom does something like this for handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter, informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically never exercised) to override over the next few days.
Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:
- Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.
- Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.
By sending an e-mail, any group becomes an affiliate-to-be :)
- Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
the liaison. They can approve the group, recommend it for further review, or reject it as incomplete.
We generally rotate who takes care of the next incoming request, in order to balance the workload among all members. We don't want one member handling 7 applications at the same time, when there is one with just one (unless the case becomes extremely thorny), right?
3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for discussion by the committee.
We try as much as possible to shorten the discussion phase, but it is important to gather any concerns that may arise. Sometimes I can see an application as ready-to-go, but then you see something that I missed, and which is indeed worth analyzing further.
3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the result (approve or reject) and the reviewer. This can be done in batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
As far as I remember, we have not received more than three applications on a same day.
3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its liaison.
They do :)
This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was the original goal. I know that we currently require separately 4) signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark uses to groups that have been approved.
I don't think this can be done in those originally expected 15 minutes :-)
Please remember this is all in an ideal situation, as Bence put it correctly, and that much of the time between each one of the steps taken can vary depending on how fast the affiliates-to-be respond, the time the volunteer making part of the AffCom takes, and so on. Again, we always try to shorten it as much as possible.
A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition process, as far as I can see. AffCom can separately engage groups to help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.
Having bylaws is not mandatory for UGs as they do not need to incoporate. However, if they plan to do so upon recognition, it is worth reviewing them. Also, in some geographic jurisdictions, they need to incorporate, so that should be done in parallel in those cases.
Regards, Sam
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Quick question:
The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition process to be shortened to a few weeks.
When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should take no more than 15 minutes. What currently takes time?
Sam
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this. Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs? I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
Thanks Sam - your thinking is always refreshing.
I believe, I and Greg have mentioned a few examples without naming names, but in general, the question we ask is whether a group is genuine (i.e. are they who they say they are; are they part of the Wikimedia community), do they mean well (i.e. do they want to make a quick buck with the name or some quick grant and disappear, or are they genuinely trying to further the mission), and often can they be a constructive part of the movement (a sort of human, interpersonal factor that takes more time to ascertain where groups that have relationships with other groups or where they have "non-standard" relationships with us).
Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined, but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has been a "history". Defining this requirement and whether any "non-standard" (as compared to existing examples) group meets the requirement creates a whole meta process in each process where by executing the process we are defining what the outcome (i.e. user groups) are supposed to be. I wish this could be a one man job, as there would be so much more agreement, but perhaps the results would be less optimal then when we rely on the consensus of a committee with years of experience and a multitude of viewpoints.
In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into the process, the better. Unfortunately, those that are first in some way, will have to live through the meta process while we check the boxes, but they get to write history the same way supreme court cases do :)
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this. Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs? I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
Thanks Sam - your thinking is always refreshing.
I believe, I and Greg have mentioned a few examples without naming names, but in general, the question we ask is whether a group is genuine (i.e. are they who they say they are; are they part of the Wikimedia community), do they mean well (i.e. do they want to make a quick buck with the name or some quick grant and disappear, or are they genuinely trying to further the mission), and often can they be a constructive part of the movement (a sort of human, interpersonal factor that takes more time to ascertain where groups that have relationships with other groups or where they have "non-standard" relationships with us).
Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined, but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has been a "history". Defining this requirement and whether any "non-standard" (as compared to existing examples) group meets the requirement creates a whole meta process in each process where by executing the process we are defining what the outcome (i.e. user groups) are supposed to be. I wish this could be a one man job, as there would be so much more agreement, but perhaps the results would be less optimal than when we rely on the consensus of a committee with years of experience and a multitude of viewpoints.
In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into the process, the better. Unfortunately, those that are first in some way, will have to live through the meta process while we check the boxes, but they get to write history the same way supreme court cases do :)
Best regards, Bence
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has been a "history".
I see, thank you for explaining. I believe this refers to the language in https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affili...
Would it be more helpful if the clause you mention were changed to read "an established contact person and a wikipage describing the group's activity"? I believe that is equally representative of the thinking behind the resolution.
If the the Board can remedy unfortunate wording that is slowing things down, I will propose a change right away.
In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into the process, the better.
Agreed. :)
Greg writes:
Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a request comes in, someone is assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that person feels okay or doesn't have questions, they send the info to the group, post a resolution, and we vote.
If the process can't be done in a single pass, it's probably too complicated.
Compare the process of forming a Meetup group. There are basic standards of behavior and usage -- applied via review after the fact, soft-security style -- and measures of activity. But as soon as you finish filling out a form describing your group, it has been created + is visible online + has its events included in a global calendar, and starts to get updates and support.
Sam
Compare the process of forming a Meetup group. There are basic standards of behavior and usage -- applied via review after the fact, soft-security style -- and measures of activity. But as soon as you finish filling out a form describing your group, it has been created + is visible online + has its events included in a global calendar, and starts to get updates and support. Wiki Borregos has been operating in this manner for some time. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Borregos_CCM_Student_User_Group We originally put our info as a student club, but when it became obvious that the program to support such an organization had died, we put in to be a user group.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
Wiki Borregos has been operating in this manner for some time. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Borregos_CCM_Student_User_Group We originally put our info as a student club, but when it became obvious that the program to support such an organization had died, we put in to be a user group.
Out of curiosity, what does the "Borregos" in the name mean?
~Nathan
Borregos means "rams" the mascot of the Tec de Monterrey.
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 16:17:49 -0400 From: nawrich@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
Wiki Borregos has been operating in this manner for some time. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Borregos_CCM_Student_User_Group We originally put our info as a student club, but when it became obvious that the program to support such an organization had died, we put in to be a user group.
Out of curiosity, what does the "Borregos" in the name mean?
~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Samuel Klein sj@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has been a "history".
I see, thank you for explaining. I believe this refers to the language in
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affili...
Would it be more helpful if the clause you mention were changed to read "an established contact person and a wikipage describing the group's activity"? I believe that is equally representative of the thinking behind the resolution.
If the the Board can remedy unfortunate wording that is slowing things down, I will propose a change right away.
Yes, that would be an improvement and closer to the current interpretation.
In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into the process, the better.
Agreed. :)
Greg writes:
Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a request comes in, someone
is
assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that person feels okay or doesn't have questions, they send the info to the group, post a
resolution,
and we vote.
If the process can't be done in a single pass, it's probably too complicated.
Compare the process of forming a Meetup group. There are basic standards of behavior and usage -- applied via review after the fact, soft-security style -- and measures of activity. But as soon as you finish filling out a form describing your group, it has been created + is visible online + has its events included in a global calendar, and starts to get updates and support.
I might be mistaken, but meetup.com groups cost money to maintain, don't they? (And that might itself be a security feature.)
Obviously, having more user groups would be great, but we do not currently know how many are not being created due to the process. It is entirely possible, that the creation of active user groups (without further investments and interventions into seeding communities) is currently maxed out already. Even in the case of review after the fact, we might just be shifting the burden on volunteers down the line in time to prove that they have measured up to the requirements. (On the other hand, it is also a possible hypothesis, that there is a ratio of active to inactive user groups that is "natural", and just by increasing the numbers, we can maintain the ratio and grow the number of active ones.)
As there is not enough evidence to suggest that user group status in itself can act as a catalyst where there is not a strong seed of community in place, or that we are failing en masse in recognising those communities that actively seek recognition (we may be slow, but the failure rate should be within normal levels), simply opening the gates will not necessarily going to result in more Wikimedia activity in more places of the world (the ultimate end goal of the exercise). This is not to say that there is no need to simplify the process -- there is lots -- but there should be a holistic picture: there is need for helping communities be created, for helping communities grow, there is need to provide recognition to volunteers, there is need for providing support, resources and advice to existing groups, there is a need to provide some level of oversight [somebody has to read the reports that are being produced at the least] -- we can stress the system by adding hundreds of user groups [the recognition element in the picture] but that will not result in a successful user group model unless we can provide the resources for all the connected services so that we can set them up for success.
Best regards, Bence
Obviously, having more user groups would be great, but we do not currently know how many are not being created due to the process. It is entirely possible, that the creation of active user groups (without further investments and interventions into seeding communities) is currently maxed out already.
This cannot be true because we know of at least one group with established contact, a web page and a history of projects which is NOT recognized. If even one group, especially one with a track record, is being marginalized under the current process, that process needs to be looked at.
If I understand the rest of Bence's email, the issues seem to be that 1) approving more groups may mean a higher rate of failure and 2) more groups means that resources (time, money) will be taken from established groups. If these are the main concerns, why create the categories of thematic groups and user groups in the first place? Why does AffComm place a higher priority on already-recognized groups over those looking already working but lacking the same status? Is anyone on AffCom not already part of a chapter or other recognized affiliate? If not, who speaks for those who are still outside the system?
From: bdamokos@gmail.com Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 14:17:13 +0200 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Samuel Klein sj@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has been a "history".
I see, thank you for explaining. I believe this refers to the language in
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affili...
Would it be more helpful if the clause you mention were changed to read "an established contact person and a wikipage describing the group's activity"? I believe that is equally representative of the thinking behind the resolution.
If the the Board can remedy unfortunate wording that is slowing things down, I will propose a change right away.
Yes, that would be an improvement and closer to the current interpretation.
In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into the process, the better.
Agreed. :)
Greg writes:
Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a request comes in, someone
is
assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that person feels okay or doesn't have questions, they send the info to the group, post a
resolution,
and we vote.
If the process can't be done in a single pass, it's probably too complicated.
Compare the process of forming a Meetup group. There are basic standards of behavior and usage -- applied via review after the fact, soft-security style -- and measures of activity. But as soon as you finish filling out a form describing your group, it has been created + is visible online + has its events included in a global calendar, and starts to get updates and support.
I might be mistaken, but meetup.com groups cost money to maintain, don't they? (And that might itself be a security feature.)
Obviously, having more user groups would be great, but we do not currently know how many are not being created due to the process. It is entirely possible, that the creation of active user groups (without further investments and interventions into seeding communities) is currently maxed out already. Even in the case of review after the fact, we might just be shifting the burden on volunteers down the line in time to prove that they have measured up to the requirements. (On the other hand, it is also a possible hypothesis, that there is a ratio of active to inactive user groups that is "natural", and just by increasing the numbers, we can maintain the ratio and grow the number of active ones.)
As there is not enough evidence to suggest that user group status in itself can act as a catalyst where there is not a strong seed of community in place, or that we are failing en masse in recognising those communities that actively seek recognition (we may be slow, but the failure rate should be within normal levels), simply opening the gates will not necessarily going to result in more Wikimedia activity in more places of the world (the ultimate end goal of the exercise). This is not to say that there is no need to simplify the process -- there is lots -- but there should be a holistic picture: there is need for helping communities be created, for helping communities grow, there is need to provide recognition to volunteers, there is need for providing support, resources and advice to existing groups, there is a need to provide some level of oversight [somebody has to read the reports that are being produced at the least] -- we can stress the system by adding hundreds of user groups [the recognition element in the picture] but that will not result in a successful user group model unless we can provide the resources for all the connected services so that we can set them up for success.
Best regards, Bence _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still stuck on "bylaws". Why is AffCom asking for bylaws?
Depends on the context.
We do review them, or at least try to, whenever a group (chapter, user group, thematic organisation) decides to have them, in order to make sure they comply with with the requirements for the given affiliate type and some general best practices. If a user group doesn't have a bylaw, then we are not asking them to create one - in fact, the choice over bylaws was one of the original design points for the user group model.
Best regards, Bence
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still stuck on "bylaws". Why is AffCom asking for bylaws?
Depends on the context.
We do review them, or at least try to, whenever a group (chapter, user group, thematic organisation) decides to have them, in order to make sure they comply with with the requirements for the given affiliate type and some general best practices. If a user group doesn't have a bylaw, then we are not asking them to create one - in fact, the choice over bylaws was one of the original design points for the user group model.
I'll also add, Risker, for clarity, that User Groups may use Wikimedia trademarks. As such, if the group seeking User Group recognition is a registered association, it makes sense to ask to review their bylaws. Imagine the AAA - "Association for Authors' Attribution" - asking for User Group status. It so happens that their real aim is not "enforce attribution for authorship in free licenses" but "extend copyright for centuries after author's death", it might make sense to actually have a look at their existing bylaws before granting them the right to use Wikimedia's name.
Delphine
Does AffCom report on the status or disposition of applications for affiliation? Is there a grid of pending applications, prior applications and outcomes (with explanations, if negative)? That would be a handy way of increasing transparency for this process for both participants and community observers. I looked for one in the AffCom meta garden but couldn't find anything quite like that.
~Nathan
Hi Nathan,
There is a shortish overview at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Reports/2012#State_of... .
In general, we very rarely reject applications outright publicly -- more often than not, an application will run until we have worked with the group to the point that they meet the requirements for approval, or they realise that they do not want to pursue approval. You can follow all the groups that are seeking approval in our Meta garden at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_in_discussion_ph..., https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizations#Planned_the... and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups#Planned_user_groups. (Cannot guarantee that all groups have listed themselves there, but it is a wiki, so anyone can add the missing ones.)
On the same pages you will find all the approved ones with links to the relevant resolutions that give some explanations to the reasons (although they are quite general, as they all assert the belief of AffCom that the affiliate in question meets the requirements for recognition).
Best regards, Bence
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Does AffCom report on the status or disposition of applications for affiliation? Is there a grid of pending applications, prior applications and outcomes (with explanations, if negative)? That would be a handy way of increasing transparency for this process for both participants and community observers. I looked for one in the AffCom meta garden but couldn't find anything quite like that.
~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter osamadre@hotmail.com wrote:
Obviously, having more user groups would be great, but we do not
currently
know how many are not being created due to the process. It is entirely possible, that the creation of active user groups (without further investments and interventions into seeding communities) is currently maxed out already.
This cannot be true because we know of at least one group with established contact, a web page and a history of projects which is NOT recognized. If even one group, especially one with a track record, is being marginalized under the current process, that process needs to be looked at.
Leigh, I understand your frustration, and I am sorry that the recognition process for your group has not finished yet, nor have we given a definite answer. For the purposes of this public discussion a focus on the more general topic may be helpful. The marginal utility of publicly poking us is decreasing fast and slowly turning into the negative, I am afraid. We may take it as read that AffCom is not perfect.
If I understand the rest of Bence's email, the issues seem to be that 1) approving more groups may mean a higher rate of failure and 2) more groups means that resources (time, money) will be taken from established groups. If these are the main concerns, why create the categories of thematic groups and user groups in the first place? Why does AffComm place a higher priority on already-recognized groups over those looking already working but lacking the same status? Is anyone on AffCom not already part of a chapter or other recognized affiliate? If not, who speaks for those who are still outside the system?
My main point was that there is more to creating an ecosystem of successful user groups than just recognising more groups. There is a need for an extended support system, and the movement is putting more and more attention towards this issue in recent years -- the liaison system that this thread is originally about is one such step that the AffCom is working on, but there is a wider picture with on-going efforts by other volunteers, chapters, and the WMF. Similarly, there is an on-going, perhaps multi-year conversation around what level of resources to channel into this area -- perhaps one of the main outcomes, thanks to the support of the WMF, is that AffCom is given more resources to work with (access to staff and Board; ability to provide scholarships and endorse grants, etc.).
In these developments and processes, it is important to note that there does not seem to be a constraint, where support to one type of affiliate limits available support to other types of affiliates. There is however a possible constraint in the overall number of affiliates we could handle with the current levels of resources and structures and we have not bumped into those caps yet, and will likely won't in the foreseeable future. Changing the rate at which we add new affiliates from dozens a year to say a hundred, would be a change that could strain our systems -- a change that would be worth it if we had hundreds of Wikimedia communities that we could empower thusly.
You can learn more about the background of AffCom members at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Members, you will see that people come with diverse background, but nobody is there to represent a particular niche, per se. We do try to consider what the various stakeholders might think, and then we usually ask them to check if we were correct (like in the recent RFC on user group logos, or the sessions we had with the attendees and WMF Board at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin).
Best regards, Bence
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org