Why do we need to balance numbers against what matters, what is wrong with
trust and assuming good faith its made wikipedia the special thing it is,
we didnt need qualifications to be part of it, we didnt have quotas, we
could all do as little or as much as we liked, every effort mattered it
created something great, something beyond what had every been done before,
it brought together and nurtured the differences it grew from those
beginnings not because of numbers. So why change what makes us great, why
put numbers in place of everything else why even try to balance numbers
with what really matters because its what matters that important its what
matters is our goal.
We are because someone once imagined a world where the sum of all knowledge
could shared freely, not because someone once imagined a number and made
everyone else reach that number
On 23 August 2016 at 01:23, James Heilman <j <jmh649(a)gmail.com>> wrote:
I see it a bit both ways. I would hope that the
designation "chapter" and
"user group" reflect at least something about the capacity of the
organization in question. And organizations change over time so why should
not their designation? I also agree that not all that matters can be
measured / quantified. We still need to do what matters even if a nice
little number cannot be attached to it. The question is how do we balance
these two.
Jaes
On 23 August 2016 at 08:13, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We need to focus on building communities
To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to
bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and
promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide
x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to
assist user groups to expand...
I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates
could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others
into submission.
I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own
path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates
than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees
or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or
more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference.
Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers
On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Does the
Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which
do
not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should
at least get a sense
for
that, and those chapters should be notified and
be put on the path to
meeting standards or losing their status.
Hi Ben,
The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/
Eligibility_Criteria
That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity
in
the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
towards.
Regards,
Chris Keating
User:The Land
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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
--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com