Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan to return here in a week or two.
Pine
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you need to assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we all face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be unfair to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work among those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid to get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
--- *Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, WMF or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
--- If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you need to assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we all face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after all of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be unfair to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work among those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid to get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, WMF or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you need
to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we all face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I
plan
to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Gnangarra,
This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be only about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more interesting and important, topic.
As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will come.
But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the strategy.
That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by their engagements.
One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or white.
Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen on a much larger topic that includes them. AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
Happy to further that discussion,
Have a all great day
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after all of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid
to
get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom,
WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you
need
to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we
all
face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder
progress.
We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I
plan
to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had with affcom.
All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of good faith with more rules, more bureaucracy more power cabals. we make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of distrust and badt faith . As a group we need to get back to trust and assuming good faith.
Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to make things better because we just happen to find it easy to make that choice
On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be only about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more interesting and important, topic.
As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will come.
But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the strategy.
That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by their engagements.
One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or white.
Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen on a much larger topic that includes them. AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
Happy to further that discussion,
Have a all great day
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after
all
of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to
some
consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates
to
meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg
and
Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep
affiliate
status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid
to
get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF
staff
makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you
eligible
to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every
case
if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom,
WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it,
I'm
sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others,
accept
that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you
need
to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we
all
face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always
be
fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real
laws,
real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder
progress.
We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly
complicated
collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved
in
Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I
plan
to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
What surprized me is the bad faith you assumed regarding AffCom and BoT when during the past weeks I believe we've shown through actions, and not talks, that we did listen to the feedback and acted on it. The discussion on wikimedia-l have been really good to read for a few weeks and I would love it to keep it that way. Disagreeing is a good thing, when it is done in a manner that is actually open for a discussion. We will not always be right, and having people disagreeing and explaining why we might be wrong is the best way to make sure we make as little wrong decisions as possible.
And I totally agree we need to assume good faith and trust each other, that is key in the coming strategy process.
And that's also why I'm surprized because setting up those temporaly criterias is done so that for the next few month AffCom will be able to work with affiliates to contribute to the strategy process.
Of course for native english speaking / larger chapters, it might not be a bigh deal. But we also have dozens of smaller organizations that do not dare be part of this discussion. We also need their opinions, their views, to know about their needs and expectations. That is where AffCom will be super useful for the movement.
Again, we have shared that publicly during Wikimania, and I am happy to do that here to, but our rmain goal for this year is to make sure we finally have a comprehensive movement strategy. That is where our focus is. So temporary decisions, like this one, are made so that we focus discussing about the thing that will shape the movement for years.
I am happy to discuss this here, all I ask is please to assume good faith and read into the context I'm trying to provide you with.
Have a great day,
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had with affcom.
All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of good faith with more rules, more bureaucracy more power cabals. we make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of distrust and badt faith . As a group we need to get back to trust and assuming good faith.
Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to make things better because we just happen to find it easy to make that choice
On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
only
about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
interesting
and important, topic.
As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
it
is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will come.
But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
consultation
about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the strategy.
That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live
by
their engagements.
One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or white.
Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
happen
on a much larger topic that includes them. AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties
and
sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
Happy to further that discussion,
Have a all great day
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after
all
of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish
them
On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to
some
consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to
be
clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized
affiliates
to
meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg
and
Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg
and
Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep
affiliate
status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to
avoid
to
get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF
staff
makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you
eligible
to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every
case
if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for
AffCom,
WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it,
I'm
sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what
you
want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others,
accept
that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you
need
to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges
we
all
face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always
be
fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see
things
differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real
laws,
real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder
progress.
We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that
effectively
requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly
complicated
collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are
involved
in
Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects,
but I
plan
to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Seriously, it's just board and affcom doing their job ...
And oh surprise, they did not involved the whole communities on temporary criteria ... I just want to thanks them for not wasting my time.
I'd rather be involve in the strategy!
2016-08-23 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had with affcom.
All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of good faith with more rules, more bureaucracy more power cabals. we make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of distrust and badt faith . As a group we need to get back to trust and assuming good faith.
Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to make things better because we just happen to find it easy to make that choice
On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
only
about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
interesting
and important, topic.
As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
it
is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will come.
But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
consultation
about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the strategy.
That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live
by
their engagements.
One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or white.
Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
happen
on a much larger topic that includes them. AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties
and
sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
Happy to further that discussion,
Have a all great day
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after
all
of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish
them
On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to
some
consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to
be
clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized
affiliates
to
meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg
and
Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg
and
Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep
affiliate
status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to
avoid
to
get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF
staff
makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you
eligible
to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every
case
if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for
AffCom,
WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it,
I'm
sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what
you
want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others,
accept
that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you
need
to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges
we
all
face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always
be
fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see
things
differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real
laws,
real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder
progress.
We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that
effectively
requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly
complicated
collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are
involved
in
Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects,
but I
plan
to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a discussion. I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT fostering community.
To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to take the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal approach to engagement on any level.
I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the dismissive responses by those who seem to be on the committee.
If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach seems a real misstep.
- Erika
On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had with affcom.
All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of good faith with more rules, more bureaucracy more power cabals. we make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of distrust and badt faith . As a group we need to get back to trust and assuming good faith.
Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to make things better because we just happen to find it easy to make that choice
On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Gnangarra,
This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be only about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more interesting and important, topic.
As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will come.
But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the strategy.
That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by their engagements.
One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or white.
Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen on a much larger topic that includes them. AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
Happy to further that discussion,
Have a all great day
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after all of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them
On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid
to
get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom,
WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you
need
to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we
all
face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder
progress.
We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I
plan
to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Hi Brill,
Everything is a discussion. There has been interesting points and discussions for many mails, and we would like that to continue. Because all of those opinions are interesting in setting the movement strategy.
Howevere the *temporary* criteria are to be used by AffCom now. So that AffCom can actually continue its work, and resume approving new chapters (which was on hold for month) without postponing it.
As we said on other emails few weeks, we want to use the coming year to form a movement strategy. A strategy that is comprehensive of who we are, a global movement. So it would be, I believe, a waste of time to work / discuss over criterieas that will have to be adapted in a few month.
The AffCom came up with, what I think, and from the previous emails, is good criterias. They might need some interpretation, and I'm sure the AffCom will not apply them bluntly. And again they are a temporary framework.
So again, not shutting down the discussion, discussion is more than welcome and needed. But the discussion will impact the long term criterias and AffCom role and responsabilities. which, I believe, is a much more important discussions. And the different opinions voiced in reaction to those criterias are really interesting.
Have a nice day :)
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a discussion. I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT fostering community.
To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to take the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal approach to engagement on any level.
I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the dismissive responses by those who seem to be on the committee.
If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach seems a real misstep.
- Erika
On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you
could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the
affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had with affcom.
All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption
of good faith with more rules, more bureaucracy more power cabals. we make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of distrust and badt faith . As a group we need to get back to trust and assuming good faith.
Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to make things better because we just happen to find it easy to make that choice
On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
only
about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
interesting
and important, topic.
As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer),
it
is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia
organizations
to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion
will
come.
But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
consultation
about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the strategy.
That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I
thought
was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom
support
affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates
live by
their engagements.
One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or white.
Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
happen
on a much larger topic that includes them. AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties
and
sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
Happy to further that discussion,
Have a all great day
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen,
just
like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear
after all
of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community
was
heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and
now
Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish
them
On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention
to some
consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want
to be
clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized
affiliates to
meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be
unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg
and
Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work
among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every
ThOrg and
Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep
affiliate
status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to
avoid
to
get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF
staff
makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you
eligible
to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in
every case
if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for
AffCom,
WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years
without
activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing
it, I'm
sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what
you
want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others,
accept
that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that
you
need
to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to
challenges we
all
face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant
always be
fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
> Gnangarra, > > I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see
things
> differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the
vision.
> Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but > organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real
laws,
> real > people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder
progress.
> We > want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that
effectively
> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly
complicated
> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part. > > I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are
involved in
> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, > transparently, and fairly in service of the mission. > > I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects,
but I
plan
> to return here in a week or two. > > Pine > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
From the perspective of Wiki Project Med Foundation, I am happy to see
criteria for thorg / chapter status. It makes a previously somewhat unclear application process more concrete.
James
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Brill,
Everything is a discussion. There has been interesting points and discussions for many mails, and we would like that to continue. Because all of those opinions are interesting in setting the movement strategy.
Howevere the *temporary* criteria are to be used by AffCom now. So that AffCom can actually continue its work, and resume approving new chapters (which was on hold for month) without postponing it.
As we said on other emails few weeks, we want to use the coming year to form a movement strategy. A strategy that is comprehensive of who we are, a global movement. So it would be, I believe, a waste of time to work / discuss over criterieas that will have to be adapted in a few month.
The AffCom came up with, what I think, and from the previous emails, is good criterias. They might need some interpretation, and I'm sure the AffCom will not apply them bluntly. And again they are a temporary framework.
So again, not shutting down the discussion, discussion is more than welcome and needed. But the discussion will impact the long term criterias and AffCom role and responsabilities. which, I believe, is a much more important discussions. And the different opinions voiced in reaction to those criterias are really interesting.
Have a nice day :)
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a discussion. I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT fostering community.
To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to take the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal approach to engagement on any level.
I haven't heard anything untoward in this discussion. Except the dismissive responses by those who seem to be on the committee.
If this was a for-profit organization this response might be more understandable but as Wikimedia is most definitely NOT this approach
seems
a real misstep.
- Erika
On Aug 23, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you
could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America
to
be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the
affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in
exactly
the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought
they
had with affcom.
All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption
of good faith with more rules, more bureaucracy more power cabals. we make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of distrust and badt faith . As a group we need to get back to
trust
and assuming good faith.
Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create
criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to make things better because we just happen to find it easy to make
that
choice
On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner chenner@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi Gnangarra,
This is not a discussion, and this is by design.
As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement
can
keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be
only
about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more
interesting
and important, topic.
As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more
to
come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and
summer),
it
is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do
we
make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia
organizations
to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion
will
come.
But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a
consultation
about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about
the
strategy.
That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I
thought
was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom
support
affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates
live by
their engagements.
One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually.
As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or white.
Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can
happen
on a much larger topic that includes them. AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with
many
duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties
and
sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts.
Happy to further that discussion,
Have a all great day
Christophe
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen,
just
like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors...
sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear
after all
of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community
was
heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and
now
Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish
them
On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention
to some
consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want
to be
clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized
affiliates to
meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would
be
unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the
ThOrg
and
Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of
work
among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every
ThOrg and
Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep
affiliate
status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to
avoid
to
get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that
WMF
staff
makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you
eligible
to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in
every case
if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose
my
recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for
AffCom,
WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years
without
activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing
it, I'm
sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
> Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve
what
you
> want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others,
accept
> that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that
you
need
to > assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to
challenges we
all
> face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant
always be
fair > > On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote: > >> Gnangarra, >> >> I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see
things
>> differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the
vision.
>> Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community,
but
>> organizations exist in a complicated world with real money,
real
laws,
>> real >> people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder
progress.
>> We >> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that
effectively
>> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly
complicated
>> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part. >> >> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are
involved in
>> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, >> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission. >> >> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects,
but I
plan >> to return here in a week or two. >> >> Pine >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
>> > > > > -- > GN. > President Wikimedia Australia > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Affiliates mailing list > Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates > >
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
bscribe>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for these updates, Carlos and all.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.
Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be unfair to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work among those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid to get them dormant.
This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.
*Possible questions:*
*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my recognition as chapter?*
*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.
*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*
*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, WMF or other affiliates help if is needed.
*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without activity and nothing had happened so far.*
*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P
Regards!
2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you need
to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we all face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be
fair
On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Gnangarra,
I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I
plan
to return here in a week or two.
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org