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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> > >
>> > > > 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(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
_______________________________________________
Affiliates mailing list
Affiliates(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine