Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this. Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs? I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
It looks like the main steps are
a) appointing a liaison b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many) c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)
with an optional step of d) reviewing bylaws
Nathan's idea is a good one. LangCom does something like this for handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter, informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically never exercised) to override over the next few days.
Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:
0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.
1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.
2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming the liaison. They can approve the group, recommend it for further review, or reject it as incomplete.
3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for discussion by the committee.
3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the result (approve or reject) and the reviewer. This can be done in batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its liaison.
This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was the original goal. I know that we currently require separately 4) signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark uses to groups that have been approved.
A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition process, as far as I can see. AffCom can separately engage groups to help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.
Regards, Sam
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being available at the time of application).
However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
Best regards, Bence
P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Quick question:
The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition process to be shortened to a few weeks.
When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should take no more than 15 minutes. What currently takes time?
Sam
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe