[Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
52 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Carlos M. Colina
Dear all,

On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which
we will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter
and thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not
clearly defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to
justify chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue,
we have set out three new criteria:

 1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
    expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
    events; to balance online and offline projects; to strive for
    continuous activity; and to conduct programs and events at least
    once every two months.
 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
    expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
    and events before executing them; to measure the results of
    programs, projects, and events against those targets; and to report
    on those results to the Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia
    movement.
 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
    expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups
    and organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
    institutions, and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to
    add and improve content on Wikimedia projects.

In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
Affiliations Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for
all new applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic
organisations will continue to be assessed against the existing legal,
governance, and viability criteria; more details, including the benefits
and limitations of these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]

Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation
affiliate models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The
Affiliations Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to
evaluate results and feedback during the initial pilot period and
consider potential revisions to the criteria before they are finalized.

Thank you,
M.

1:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapter_Summary_Matrix
2:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Lane Rasberry
Hello,

Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but from
this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to significantly
higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the
case?

yours,


On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
> out three new criteria:
>
>    1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>    expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
>    balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
>    to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>    2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>    expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
>    events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
>    and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
>    Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>    3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>    expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
>    organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
>    and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
>    on Wikimedia projects.
>
> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>
> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>
> Thank you,
> M.
>
> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Chapter_Summary_Matrix
> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una organización
> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
> propietarios.
>
> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>


--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Romaine Wiki-2
The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official status
at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these
criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these
criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter.

I personally think the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be
followed.

It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the results.
Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and
newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter for
collaborations with various partner organisations.

Romaine

2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry <[hidden email]>:

> Hello,
>
> Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but
> from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to significantly
> higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the
> case?
>
> yours,
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
>> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
>> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
>> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
>> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
>> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
>> out three new criteria:
>>
>>    1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>    expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
>>    balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
>>    to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>>    2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>    expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
>>    events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
>>    and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
>>    Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>>    3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>    expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
>>    organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
>>    and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
>>    on Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
>> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
>> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
>> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
>> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
>> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
>> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>>
>> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
>> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
>> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
>> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
>> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
>> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
>> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> M.
>>
>> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt
>> er_Summary_Matrix
>> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema
>> tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
>> --
>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
>> Carlos M. Colina
>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>> Twitter: @maor_x
>>
>> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
>> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
>> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
>> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
>> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una organización
>> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
>> propietarios.
>>
>> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
>> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>> _______________________________________________
>> Affiliates mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Pine W
In reply to this post by Carlos M. Colina
Hi Carlos,

In general, I like the new criteria.

I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
the status of affiliates.

I would also suggest that existing chapters should be evaluated routinely,
perhaps in alternate years, to verify that they meet the criteria. If they
don't, they can be put on probation for 6 months, and if after that time
they still fall below the new standards, then they will be demoted to user
group status and can re-apply for chapter status after a year. This would
be a way to level the playing field between existing chapters, and user
groups who wish to be chapters.

Thanks,

Pine

On Aug 19, 2016 05:36, "Carlos M. Colina" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
> out three new criteria:
>
>    1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>    expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
>    balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
>    to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>    2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>    expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
>    events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
>    and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
>    Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>    3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>    expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
>    organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
>    and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
>    on Wikimedia projects.
>
> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>
> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>
> Thank you,
> M.
>
> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Chapter_Summary_Matrix
> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una organización
> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
> propietarios.
>
> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Brill Lyle
In reply to this post by Romaine Wiki-2
I agree with Lane.

Setting higher criteria is all well and good -- as is expecting boards to
be cognizant of these expectations.

But we are dealing with volunteers doing a significant amount of free
digital labor and organizing. To set a bar super high in that structure is
a lot to expect of people contributing their T&E.

Both Lane and I are part of Wikimedia NYC, a very active chapter that
somehow (I believe) manages to meet these criteria amidst almost
exponential growth of activities. The administrative burden on both our
leadership and membership is heavy, and I am grateful for everyone's pitch
in / can do approach and willingness to contribute.

And no, the answer is not to do less events and have less support to
institutional partners and various initiatives. That's not practical or
good for anyone.

But it brings to mind a recent trip I made where I visited the Wikimedia
Deutschland offices. Where there was a whole room (!) of 6 fully set up
computers with I am assuming the same number of staff for Event planning
alone -- all which I assume are paid positions. That really made me pause
in shock. And feel like a bit of an idiot that our chapter does so much
without that type of structural support.

So while I understand the idea of these criteria, to have the balance beam
heavily weighted on requirements without attendant support is not a
workable model.

- Erika
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC -- but not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official status
> at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these
> criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these
> criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter.
>
> I personally think the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be
> followed.
>
> It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the results.
> Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and
> newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter for
> collaborations with various partner organisations.
>
> Romaine
>
> 2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but
> > from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to
> significantly
> > higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the
> > case?
> >
> > yours,
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
> >> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria,
> which we
> >> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
> >> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
> >> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
> >> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have
> set
> >> out three new criteria:
> >>
> >>    1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> >>    expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
> events; to
> >>    balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous
> activity; and
> >>    to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
> >>    2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> >>    expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
> and
> >>    events before executing them; to measure the results of programs,
> projects,
> >>    and events against those targets; and to report on those results to
> the
> >>    Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
> >>    3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> >>    expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups
> and
> >>    organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
> institutions,
> >>    and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve
> content
> >>    on Wikimedia projects.
> >>
> >> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
> >> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
> Affiliations
> >> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
> >> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations
> will
> >> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
> >> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and
> limitations of
> >> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
> >>
> >> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
> >> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
> >> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation
> affiliate
> >> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
> >> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results
> and
> >> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential
> revisions
> >> to the criteria before they are finalized.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> M.
> >>
> >> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt
> >> er_Summary_Matrix
> >> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema
> >> tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
> >> --
> >> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> >> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> >> Carlos M. Colina
> >> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> >> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
> >> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> >> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> >> Twitter: @maor_x
> >>
> >> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> >> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
> >> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> >> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
> >> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la
> Fundación
> >> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una organización
> >> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
> >> propietarios.
> >>
> >> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> >> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Affiliates mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lane Rasberry
> > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > 206.801.0814
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Affiliates mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Pine W
I might suggest distinguishing the resourcing issue from the chapter status
criteria.

I am of the view that expecting volunteers to be available for the same
kind and quantity of work as paid part-time or full-time staff is
unrealistic, that WMF should provide a smoother glide slope from
all-volunteer affiliate to affiliate with first time paid staff, and that
WMF should rethink their one-size-fits-all approach of requiring
substantial programmatic activity before agreeing to fund any part-time
paid staff even for as little as ten hours per month. It seems to me that
WMF is limiting its own effectiveness with its current approach of setting
such a high bar before agreeing to fund part-time paid staff. But those are
issues for WMF staff, not for the Affiliations Committee.

On a slightly different subject, I think that your email helps to
illustrate how quantitative rather than qualitative criteria would be
helpful in understanding where the thresholds are. To illustrate further:

"Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected
to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events." Does "a
variety" mean three, five, or ten?

"to balance online and offline projects": are chapters now required to have
at least one online and one offline project? Are online and offline
projects supposed to be even in number, meaning that if there are three
online projects then there must be three offline projects?

"to strive for continuous activity": what is "continuous activity", and is
it a goal or a requirement?

"and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.": this
seems straightforward.

"Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected
to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before
executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events
against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia
Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.": I like this requirement,
keeping in mind that goals and targets may be difficult to set,
particularly where a program, project, or event is new to an affiliate or a
particular audience.

"External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to
engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations
(for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to
promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia
projects.": how many partnerships are required? How often must partners be
engaged in programs?

I like the general approach of the criteria, but quantitative specificity
would be helpful.

Pine





On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree with Lane.
>
> Setting higher criteria is all well and good -- as is expecting boards to
> be cognizant of these expectations.
>
> But we are dealing with volunteers doing a significant amount of free
> digital labor and organizing. To set a bar super high in that structure is
> a lot to expect of people contributing their T&E.
>
> Both Lane and I are part of Wikimedia NYC, a very active chapter that
> somehow (I believe) manages to meet these criteria amidst almost
> exponential growth of activities. The administrative burden on both our
> leadership and membership is heavy, and I am grateful for everyone's pitch
> in / can do approach and willingness to contribute.
>
> And no, the answer is not to do less events and have less support to
> institutional partners and various initiatives. That's not practical or
> good for anyone.
>
> But it brings to mind a recent trip I made where I visited the Wikimedia
> Deutschland offices. Where there was a whole room (!) of 6 fully set up
> computers with I am assuming the same number of staff for Event planning
> alone -- all which I assume are paid positions. That really made me pause
> in shock. And feel like a bit of an idiot that our chapter does so much
> without that type of structural support.
>
> So while I understand the idea of these criteria, to have the balance beam
> heavily weighted on requirements without attendant support is not a
> workable model.
>
> - Erika
> Secretary, Wikimedia NYC -- but not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself
>
> *Erika Herzog*
> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official
> status
> > at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these
> > criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these
> > criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter.
> >
> > I personally think the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be
> > followed.
> >
> > It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the
> results.
> > Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and
> > newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
> for
> > collaborations with various partner organisations.
> >
> > Romaine
> >
> > 2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but
> > > from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to
> > significantly
> > > higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that
> the
> > > case?
> > >
> > > yours,
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
> > >> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria,
> > which we
> > >> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter
> and
> > >> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
> > >> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
> > >> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we
> have
> > set
> > >> out three new criteria:
> > >>
> > >>    1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> > >>    expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
> > events; to
> > >>    balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous
> > activity; and
> > >>    to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
> > >>    2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> > >>    expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
> > and
> > >>    events before executing them; to measure the results of programs,
> > projects,
> > >>    and events against those targets; and to report on those results to
> > the
> > >>    Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
> > >>    3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
> > >>    expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external
> groups
> > and
> > >>    organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
> > institutions,
> > >>    and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve
> > content
> > >>    on Wikimedia projects.
> > >>
> > >> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
> > >> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
> > Affiliations
> > >> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
> > >> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations
> > will
> > >> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
> > >> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and
> > limitations of
> > >> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
> > >>
> > >> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
> > >> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
> > >> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation
> > affiliate
> > >> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
> > >> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results
> > and
> > >> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential
> > revisions
> > >> to the criteria before they are finalized.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you,
> > >> M.
> > >>
> > >> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt
> > >> er_Summary_Matrix
> > >> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema
> > >> tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
> > >> --
> > >> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
> wayuukanairua
> > >> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
> junain."
> > >> Carlos M. Colina
> > >> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> > www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > >> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
> > >> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > >> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > >> Twitter: @maor_x
> > >>
> > >> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> > >> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
> > >> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> > >> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
> > >> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la
> > Fundación
> > >> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una
> organización
> > >> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus
> respectivos
> > >> propietarios.
> > >>
> > >> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> > >> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Affiliates mailing list
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lane Rasberry
> > > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > > 206.801.0814
> > > [hidden email]
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Affiliates mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Carlos M. Colina
Just one small point, "and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months" reads like a rule set by Americans who deliberately or otherwise don't want too much emphasis on the education program.

Most western countries have remuneration packages that put more emphasis  on holiday time than the USA, and in some countries there is a month of the year when only an expat would try to organise things. In such countries the two month rule imposes an unnatural focus on the fortnights adjacent to the shutdown.

I suspect any chapter that took a strategy of mostly focussing events on the education sector would also have difficulties melding that two month limitation with the academic year.

There is also the issue that not all events are of equal value to the movement, and I say that a one of the de facto hosts of the London meetup ( If we were a chapter Wikimedia London would have no problem with that particular  rule as our meetups are monthly).

Regards

WereSpielChequers


> On 20 Aug 2016, at 13:00, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>    [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic
>      organisation criteria (Pine W)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:05:37 -0700
> From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>,
>    Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list
>    <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Wikimedia Chapters general discussions <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and
>    thematic organisation criteria
> Message-ID:
>    <CAF=dyJhKg3PpVwXLM1s=[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I might suggest distinguishing the resourcing issue from the chapter status
> criteria.
>
> I am of the view that expecting volunteers to be available for the same
> kind and quantity of work as paid part-time or full-time staff is
> unrealistic, that WMF should provide a smoother glide slope from
> all-volunteer affiliate to affiliate with first time paid staff, and that
> WMF should rethink their one-size-fits-all approach of requiring
> substantial programmatic activity before agreeing to fund any part-time
> paid staff even for as little as ten hours per month. It seems to me that
> WMF is limiting its own effectiveness with its current approach of setting
> such a high bar before agreeing to fund part-time paid staff. But those are
> issues for WMF staff, not for the Affiliations Committee.
>
> On a slightly different subject, I think that your email helps to
> illustrate how quantitative rather than qualitative criteria would be
> helpful in understanding where the thresholds are. To illustrate further:
>
> "Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected
> to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events." Does "a
> variety" mean three, five, or ten?
>
> "to balance online and offline projects": are chapters now required to have
> at least one online and one offline project? Are online and offline
> projects supposed to be even in number, meaning that if there are three
> online projects then there must be three offline projects?
>
> "to strive for continuous activity": what is "continuous activity", and is
> it a goal or a requirement?
>
> "and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.": this
> seems straightforward.
>
> "Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected
> to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before
> executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events
> against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia
> Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.": I like this requirement,
> keeping in mind that goals and targets may be difficult to set,
> particularly where a program, project, or event is new to an affiliate or a
> particular audience.
>
> "External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to
> engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations
> (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to
> promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia
> projects.": how many partnerships are required? How often must partners be
> engaged in programs?
>
> I like the general approach of the criteria, but quantitative specificity
> would be helpful.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Lane.
>>
>> Setting higher criteria is all well and good -- as is expecting boards to
>> be cognizant of these expectations.
>>
>> But we are dealing with volunteers doing a significant amount of free
>> digital labor and organizing. To set a bar super high in that structure is
>> a lot to expect of people contributing their T&E.
>>
>> Both Lane and I are part of Wikimedia NYC, a very active chapter that
>> somehow (I believe) manages to meet these criteria amidst almost
>> exponential growth of activities. The administrative burden on both our
>> leadership and membership is heavy, and I am grateful for everyone's pitch
>> in / can do approach and willingness to contribute.
>>
>> And no, the answer is not to do less events and have less support to
>> institutional partners and various initiatives. That's not practical or
>> good for anyone.
>>
>> But it brings to mind a recent trip I made where I visited the Wikimedia
>> Deutschland offices. Where there was a whole room (!) of 6 fully set up
>> computers with I am assuming the same number of staff for Event planning
>> alone -- all which I assume are paid positions. That really made me pause
>> in shock. And feel like a bit of an idiot that our chapter does so much
>> without that type of structural support.
>>
>> So while I understand the idea of these criteria, to have the balance beam
>> heavily weighted on requirements without attendant support is not a
>> workable model.
>>
>> - Erika
>> Secretary, Wikimedia NYC -- but not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself
>>
>> *Erika Herzog*
>> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official
>> status
>>> at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these
>>> criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these
>>> criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter.
>>>
>>> I personally think the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be
>>> followed.
>>>
>>> It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the
>> results.
>>> Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and
>>> newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
>> for
>>> collaborations with various partner organisations.
>>>
>>> Romaine
>>>
>>> 2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but
>>>> from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to
>>> significantly
>>>> higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that
>> the
>>>> case?
>>>>
>>>> yours,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
>>>>> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria,
>>> which we
>>>>> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter
>> and
>>>>> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
>>>>> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
>>>>> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we
>> have
>>> set
>>>>> out three new criteria:
>>>>>
>>>>>   1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>>>>   expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
>>> events; to
>>>>>   balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous
>>> activity; and
>>>>>   to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>>>>>   2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>>>>   expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
>>> and
>>>>>   events before executing them; to measure the results of programs,
>>> projects,
>>>>>   and events against those targets; and to report on those results to
>>> the
>>>>>   Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>>>>>   3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>>>>   expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external
>> groups
>>> and
>>>>>   organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
>>> institutions,
>>>>>   and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve
>>> content
>>>>>   on Wikimedia projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
>>>>> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
>>> Affiliations
>>>>> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
>>>>> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations
>>> will
>>>>> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
>>>>> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and
>>> limitations of
>>>>> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
>>>>> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
>>>>> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation
>>> affiliate
>>>>> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
>>>>> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results
>>> and
>>>>> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential
>>> revisions
>>>>> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> M.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt
>>>>> er_Summary_Matrix
>>>>> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema
>>>>> tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
>>>>> --
>>>>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
>> wayuukanairua
>>>>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
>> junain."
>>>>> Carlos M. Colina
>>>>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
>>> www.wikimedia.org.ve
>>>>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
>>>>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>>>>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>>>>> Twitter: @maor_x
>>>>>
>>>>> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
>>>>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
>>>>> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
>>>>> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
>>>>> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la
>>> Fundación
>>>>> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una
>> organización
>>>>> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus
>> respectivos
>>>>> propietarios.
>>>>>
>>>>> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
>>>>> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Affiliates mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lane Rasberry
>>>> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>>>> 206.801.0814
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Affiliates mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list,  guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 149, Issue 29
> ********************************************

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Carlos M. Colina
In reply to this post by Pine W
Hello Pine,


El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> In general, I like the new criteria.
>
> I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
> there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
> these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
> the status of affiliates.

The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the
situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the
same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a
loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery
operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across
the country except for the capital.

If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
story.

>
> On Aug 19, 2016 05:36, "Carlos M. Colina" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
>> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
>> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
>> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
>> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
>> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
>> out three new criteria:
>>
>>     1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>     expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
>>     balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
>>     to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>>     2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>     expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
>>     events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
>>     and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
>>     Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>>     3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>     expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
>>     organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
>>     and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
>>     on Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
>> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
>> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
>> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
>> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
>> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
>> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>>
>> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
>> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
>> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
>> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
>> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
>> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
>> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> M.
>>
>> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> Chapter_Summary_Matrix
>> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
>> --
>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
>> Carlos M. Colina
>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>> Twitter: @maor_x
>>
>> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
>> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
>> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
>> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
>> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una organización
>> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
>> propietarios.
>>
>> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
>> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>> _______________________________________________
>> Affiliates mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Carlos M. Colina
In reply to this post by Lane Rasberry
Hello Lane,

The proposed criteria will apply to new organizations. However, we
should all help all affiliates to operate at higher standards, and we're
willing and happy to assist with anything  affiliates need to grow :-)


El 19/08/2016 a las 05:51 p.m., Lane Rasberry escribió:

> Hello,
>
> Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but from
> this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to significantly
> higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that the
> case?
>
> yours,
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
>> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria, which we
>> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter and
>> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
>> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
>> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we have set
>> out three new criteria:
>>
>>     1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>     expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events; to
>>     balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous activity; and
>>     to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>>     2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>     expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and
>>     events before executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects,
>>     and events against those targets; and to report on those results to the
>>     Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>>     3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>     expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and
>>     organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions,
>>     and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content
>>     on Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
>> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Affiliations
>> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
>> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations will
>> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
>> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and limitations of
>> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>>
>> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
>> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
>> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation affiliate
>> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
>> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results and
>> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential revisions
>> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> M.
>>
>> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> Chapter_Summary_Matrix
>> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
>> Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
>> --
>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
>> Carlos M. Colina
>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>> Twitter: @maor_x
>>
>> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
>> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
>> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
>> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
>> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una organización
>> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
>> propietarios.
>>
>> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
>> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>> _______________________________________________
>> Affiliates mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>
>>
>

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Pine W
In reply to this post by Carlos M. Colina
Hi Carlos,

As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also
apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result
of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the
occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
criteria.

Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
"chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.

To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.

While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
chapters.

I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
chapters and thematic organizations.

Pine


El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> In general, I like the new criteria.
>
> I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
> there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
> these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
> the status of affiliates.
>

The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the situation
of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of
Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of
bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or
where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country
except for the capital.

If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
story.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Nathan Awrich
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also
> apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result
> of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the
> occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
> it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
> re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
> criteria.
>
> Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
> be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
> "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
> the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
> reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
> lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
> suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
> To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
> subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
> the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
> nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
> particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
> ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
>
> While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
> meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
> met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
> criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
> quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
> chapters.
>
> I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
> included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
> chapters and thematic organizations.
>
> Pine
>


What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine? How
is the Wikimedia movement damaged by having chapters which may not
universally meet precise quantitative measurements of activity or other
criteria? How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
a chapter as a user group?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Pine W
> What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?

One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
apply,
which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
set of criteria.

As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
four of
the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
one
or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
clearly
defined.

> How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> a chapter as a user group?

I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached
to
already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
existing
chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter
status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
activity
in Wikimedia.

Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or
if an
especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
which
now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
this
"truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it
would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return its
levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
than
allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
responsibilities and expectations.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Ben Creasy
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.

What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high
standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee
and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters
have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation
period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.

I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters
becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and
create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's
the current process?

On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
>
> One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
> should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
> harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
> apply,
> which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
> inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
> set of criteria.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
> flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of
> the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
> one
> or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
> clearly
> defined.
>
> > How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> > a chapter as a user group?
>
> I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached
> to
> already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
> existing
> chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter
> status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
> activity
> in Wikimedia.
>
> Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
> are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or
> if an
> especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
> happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
> decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
> which
> now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
> categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
> this
> "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it
> would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
> its
> levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
> than
> allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
> responsibilities and expectations.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

John Mark Vandenberg
I agree with Ben.

It is worthwhile understand why existing chapters may not meet these
criteria, especially if it is viable/active chapters that fail the
criteria, rather than the few dormant chapters who also fail simpler
criteria.

I suspect these criteria, which are a good baseline, can be refined in
consultation with existing chapters and the broader community.

My biggest concern is that "event" is undefined, and could include meetups
of only a few people, mostly regulars, with nn/little impact. That would
render this criteria useless, or worse encourage wasted effort to tick the
affcom criteria boxes.

And if the activity levels are only maintained in order to obtain chapter
status, they will quickly reduce activity levels after chapter status is
granted unless there is a funded plan to maintain and grow the chapter
after affcom has given the group the nod.

On 22 Aug 2016 03:22, "Ben Creasy" <[hidden email]> 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.
>
> What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high
> standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee
> and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters
> have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation
> period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.
>
> I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters
> becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and
> create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's
> the current process?
>
> On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
> >
> > One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
> > should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
> > harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
> > apply,
> > which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
> > inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
> > set of criteria.
> >
> > As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
> > flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> > four of
> > the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
> > one
> > or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
> > clearly
> > defined.
> >
> > > How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> > > a chapter as a user group?
> >
> > I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege
> attached
> > to
> > already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
> > existing
> > chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters.
> Chapter
> > status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
> > activity
> > in Wikimedia.
> >
> > Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
> > are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office,
> or
> > if an
> > especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
> > happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
> > decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
> > which
> > now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
> > categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
> > this
> > "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and
> it
> > would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
> > its
> > levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
> > than
> > allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
> > responsibilities and expectations.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Brill Lyle
In reply to this post by Pine W
Within this context, if as Pine mentions, an especially strong community
organizer leaves the chapter, or if there is a huge shift in leadership,
the chapter could go through a lot of growing pains, good or bad.

How exactly does the Affiliates committee support this issue? What specific
support is available to chapters who are transitioning or having problems?

It seems like renaming something from X to Y is not doing much to provide
solutions.

- Erika


*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> > How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> > a chapter as a user group?
>
> I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached
> to
> already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
> existing
> chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter
> status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
> activity
> in Wikimedia.
>
> Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
> are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or
> if an
> especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
> happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
> decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
> which
> now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
> categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
> this
> "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it
> would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
> its
> levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
> than
> allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
> responsibilities and expectations.
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Carlos M. Colina
In reply to this post by Carlos M. Colina
Hello Ben,

If there are chapters that are not meeting the criteria proposed, in those cases the AffCom may reach out to them to help fix the issue, stimulate the organization of activities, fix governance issues, whatever that may be. Of course, failing to meet the criteria doesn't mean immediate derecognition, that could only happen if a chapter fails repetitively to meet the criteria and does not take measures suggested within a timeframe established and agreed between all parts. Then the AffCom would recommend the change of the status, which we hope not to need to do. It should never be like pushing a "delete button"!

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: "Ben Creasy" <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 11:22 PM

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.

What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high
standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee
and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters
have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation
period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.

I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters
becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and
create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's
the current process?

On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
>
> One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
> should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
> harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
> apply,
> which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
> inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
> set of criteria.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
> flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of
> the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
> one
> or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
> clearly
> defined.
>
> > How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> > a chapter as a user group?
>
> I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached
> to
> already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
> existing
> chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter
> status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
> activity
> in Wikimedia.
>
> Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
> are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or
> if an
> especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
> happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
> decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
> which
> now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
> categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
> this
> "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it
> would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
> its
> levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
> than
> allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
> responsibilities and expectations.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

jmh649
In reply to this post by Carlos M. Colina
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 Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff at a
> hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn South Sudan is
> way bigger than those working for a state-of-the art hospital in Portland,
> Zurich or Singapore, so you think they shouldn't be considered "good
> hospitals" or not even "hospitals" because they don't meet the quantitative
> and set on stone criteria you suggest?
>
> I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the least. Every
> chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely quantitative would be
> unfair and damaging to the movement and the efforts of many wikimedians who
> cannot contribute in the ideal conditions, yet they go the extra mile where
> others living in a paradise wouldn't do that.
>
> *hat on*
>
> Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the community to
> refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet. But that's the general
> idea and the AffCom is there to assist as much as possible to those groups
> who wish to meet the criteria.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Pine W" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>,
> "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <
> [hidden email]>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
> thematic organisation criteria
> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also
> apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result
> of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the
> occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
> it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
> re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
> criteria.
>
> Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
> be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
> "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
> the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
> reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
> lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
> suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
> To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
> subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
> the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
> nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
> particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
> ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
>
> While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
> meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
> met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
> criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
> quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
> chapters.
>
> I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
> included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
> chapters and thematic organizations.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
>
>
> El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
>
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
> In general, I like the new criteria.
>
>
>
> I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
>
> there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
>
> these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
>
> the status of affiliates.
>
>
>
>
> The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
> context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
> cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the
> situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the
> same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a
> loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery
> operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across
> the country except for the capital.
>
>
>
> If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
> story.
>
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su
> titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro.
> Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
>
> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Pine W
In reply to this post by Carlos M. Colina
Carlos,

I think we need to distinguish the effort from the staff, from the capacity
and accomplishments of the organization. For example, here in Cascadia, a
very small number of people do quite a lot of work related to the Wikimedia
mission. That does not make us a chapter. Valiant efforts by people working
with limited resources are commendable, but that doesn't mean that an
organization has high capacity or is highly successful.

It is true that every organization's situation is different, but if we're
going to distinguish chapters from user groups, we need to have a
meaningful, transparent, fair, objective, and easily understood way of
making that distinction. It is possible to build some flexibility into the
criteria for chapter status while also meeting these other needs, as I have
already discussed.

Another option would be to eliminate the distinction, and call every group
a chapter. While that is possible to do, the WMF Board would want to think
about that very carefully.

Pine

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X) <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff at a
> hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn South Sudan is
> way bigger than those working for a state-of-the art hospital in Portland,
> Zurich or Singapore, so you think they shouldn't be considered "good
> hospitals" or not even "hospitals" because they don't meet the quantitative
> and set on stone criteria you suggest?
>
> I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the least. Every
> chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely quantitative would be
> unfair and damaging to the movement and the efforts of many wikimedians who
> cannot contribute in the ideal conditions, yet they go the extra mile where
> others living in a paradise wouldn't do that.
>
> *hat on*
>
> Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the community to
> refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet. But that's the general
> idea and the AffCom is there to assist as much as possible to those groups
> who wish to meet the criteria.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Pine W" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>,
> "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <
> [hidden email]>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
> thematic organisation criteria
> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also
> apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result
> of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the
> occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
> it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
> re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
> criteria.
>
> Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
> be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
> "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
> the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
> reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
> lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
> suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
> To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
> subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
> the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
> nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
> particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
> ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
>
> While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
> meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
> met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
> criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
> quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
> chapters.
>
> I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
> included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
> chapters and thematic organizations.
>
> Pine
>
>
> El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> In general, I like the new criteria.
>>
>> I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
>> there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
>> these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
>> the status of affiliates.
>>
>
> The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
> context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
> cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the situation
> of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the same of
> Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a loaf of
> bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery operating, or
> where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across the country
> except for the capital.
>
> If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
> story.
>
>
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una organización
> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos
> propietarios.
>
> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Carlos M. Colina
Pine,


El 22/08/2016 a las 08:40 p.m., Pine W escribió:
> Carlos,
>
> I think we need to distinguish the effort from the staff, from the
> capacity and accomplishments of the organization. For example, here in
> Cascadia, a very small number of people do quite a lot of work related
> to the Wikimedia mission. That does not make us a chapter. Valiant
> efforts by people working with limited resources are commendable, but
> that doesn't mean that an organization has high capacity or is highly
> successful.

Excuse me, but not all chapters can partner with the Guggenheim Museums,
NASA or the MIT.  Success is related to the resources available and
you're ignoring that.
>
> It is true that every organization's situation is different, but if
> we're going to distinguish chapters from user groups, we need to have
> a meaningful, transparent, fair, objective, and easily understood way
> of making that distinction. It is possible to build some flexibility
> into the criteria for chapter status while also meeting these other
> needs, as I have already discussed.
Chapters have a geographic scope different from UGs and ThOrgs. I
thought that distinction was clear.

>
> Another option would be to eliminate the distinction, and call every
> group a chapter. While that is possible to do, the WMF Board would
> want to think about that very carefully.
>
> Pine
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X)
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Pine,
>
>     You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff
>     at a hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn
>     South Sudan is way bigger than those working for a state-of-the
>     art hospital in Portland, Zurich or Singapore, so you think they
>     shouldn't be considered "good hospitals" or not even "hospitals"
>     because they don't meet the quantitative and set on stone criteria
>     you suggest?
>
>     I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the
>     least. Every chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely
>     quantitative would be unfair and damaging to the movement and the
>     efforts of many wikimedians who cannot contribute in the ideal
>     conditions, yet they go the extra mile where others living in a
>     paradise wouldn't do that.
>
>     *hat on*
>
>     Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the
>     community to refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet.
>     But that's the general idea and the AffCom is there to assist as
>     much as possible to those groups who wish to meet the criteria.
>
>     Sent from my HTC
>
>     ----- Reply message -----
>     From: "Pine W" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>, "Wikimedia Movement
>     Affiliates discussion list" <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions"
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
>     thematic organisation criteria
>     Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
>
>     Hi Carlos,
>
>     As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria
>     should also apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is
>     in doubt as a result of the new criteria, then the chapter can be
>     given 6 months to rise to the occasion. If chapters still do not
>     meet the new criteria after that time, it seems to me that they
>     should be re-classified as user groups until they re-apply for
>     chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new criteria.
>
>     Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there
>     needs to be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the
>     definition of "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is
>     effectively at the discretion of the Affiliations Committee. To
>     use an analogy: a hospital that is providing reasonably good care
>     for its patients would be considered a good hospital whether it is
>     in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that lacks
>     essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and
>     has suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled
>     hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
>     To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
>     subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school
>     diplomas in the United States vary so widely that by itself a high
>     school diploma is a nearly useless credential without knowing
>     which high school granted a particular diploma. It seems to me
>     that we should avoid this kind of ambiguity in the Wikimedia
>     community.
>
>     While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be
>     deemed to meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a
>     chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this
>     particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following
>     ways", it still seems to me that the criteria for chapter status
>     should be transparent, objective (primarily quantitative), and
>     easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be chapters.
>
>     I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input
>     will be included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss
>     the criteria for chapters and thematic organizations.
>
>     Pine
>
>
>     El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
>
>         Hi Carlos,
>
>         In general, I like the new criteria.
>
>         I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely
>         quantitative, so that
>         there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates
>         are meeting
>         these standards and therefore there is likely to be less
>         controversy about
>         the status of affiliates.
>
>
>     The problem of  making the criteria entirely quantitative is that
>     the context where affiliates operate is not the same across the
>     world. We cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria
>     because the situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an
>     example, is not the same of Venezuela, where people need to queue
>     for hours just to buy a loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky
>     enough to find a bakery operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily
>     blackouts are the norm across the country except for the capital.
>
>     If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be
>     another story.
>
>
>
>     El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
>     <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
>     Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros
>     proyectos relacionados
>     <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son marcas
>     registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la
>     Fundación Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>,
>     una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas
>     pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
>
>     Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
>     J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Affiliates mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>     <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

Carlos M. Colina
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Hi John,


El 22/08/2016 a las 04:50 a.m., John Mark Vandenberg escribió:
> I agree with Ben.
>
> It is worthwhile understand why existing chapters may not meet these
> criteria, especially if it is viable/active chapters that fail the
> criteria, rather than the few dormant chapters who also fail simpler
> criteria.
>
> I suspect these criteria, which are a good baseline, can be refined in
> consultation with existing chapters and the broader community.

That is the idea behind the consultation, to refine it as much as
possible with valuable input from everyone
>
> My biggest concern is that "event" is undefined, and could include meetups
> of only a few people, mostly regulars, with nn/little impact. That would
> render this criteria useless, or worse encourage wasted effort to tick the
> affcom criteria boxes.
I totally agree. Meeting for coffee, albeit cool, should be followed by
activities or planning of activities that result in something valuable
for the movement.

>
> And if the activity levels are only maintained in order to obtain chapter
> status, they will quickly reduce activity levels after chapter status is
> granted unless there is a funded plan to maintain and grow the chapter
> after affcom has given the group the nod.
>
> On 22 Aug 2016 03:22, "Ben Creasy" <[hidden email]> 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.
>>
>> What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high
>> standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee
>> and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters
>> have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation
>> period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.
>>
>> I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters
>> becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and
>> create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's
>> the current process?
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>> What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
>>> One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
>>> should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
>>> harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
>>> apply,
>>> which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
>>> inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
>>> set of criteria.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
>>> flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
>>> four of
>>> the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
>>> one
>>> or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
>>> clearly
>>> defined.
>>>
>>>> How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
>>>> a chapter as a user group?
>>> I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege
>> attached
>>> to
>>> already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
>>> existing
>>> chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters.
>> Chapter
>>> status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
>>> activity
>>> in Wikimedia.
>>>
>>> Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
>>> are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office,
>> or
>>> if an
>>> especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
>>> happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
>>> decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
>>> which
>>> now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
>>> categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
>>> this
>>> "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and
>> it
>>> would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
>>> its
>>> levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
>>> than
>>> allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
>>> responsibilities and expectations.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x

El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.

Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123