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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)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(a)hotmail.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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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). 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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________

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(a)hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

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.

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein <sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu> wrote: 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

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: -- "*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

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 &lt;maorx(a)wikimedia.org.ve&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;osamadre(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Bence Damokos &lt;bdamokos(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I see, thank you for explaining. I believe this refers to the language in https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affil… 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. Agreed. :) Greg writes: 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

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Leigh Thelmadatter &lt;osamadre(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: Out of curiosity, what does the "Borregos" in the name mean? ~Nathan

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Samuel Klein &lt;sj(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Yes, that would be an improvement and closer to the current interpretation. 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

I'm still stuck on "bylaws". Why is AffCom asking for bylaws? Risker

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter &lt;osamadre(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. 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

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