[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Gregory Varnum-2
Greetings,

Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
(chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
recognition process itself concludes.

An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.

Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.

Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
thematic org, or user group moving forward.

More info - including specific liaison assignments:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons

-greg aka varnent
Vice-Chair
Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Wiegand Alice
Good news, Greg!
This is a great initiative which can provide a lot of support especially
for younger affiliations. I'm curious how it will be accepted and what's
the kind of support affiliations ask for. Please keep us in the loop.

Alice.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Gregory Varnum <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
> (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> recognition process itself concludes.
>
> An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
> with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
> successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
> will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
> affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
>
> Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
> be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
> welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> thematic org, or user group moving forward.
>
> More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
>
> -greg aka varnent
> Vice-Chair
> Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Gregory Varnum-2
Thanks AffComm - it is great to see this moving forward.

I have added this info to the Organisational Development page on Meta;

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development

Chris


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gregory Varnum <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
> (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> recognition process itself concludes.
>
> An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
> with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
> successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
> will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
> affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
>
> Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
> be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
> welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> thematic org, or user group moving forward.
>
> More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
>
> -greg aka varnent
> Vice-Chair
> Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

metasj
Greg, this is good to hear, and a fine reason to broaden the committee.

And thanks for the reminder about that page, Chris: it is a handy starting
point.
On May 29, 2014 7:45 AM, "Chris Keating" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks AffComm - it is great to see this moving forward.
>
> I have added this info to the Organisational Development page on Meta;
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gregory Varnum <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement
> affiliates
> > (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> > community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> > Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> > recognition process itself concludes.
> >
> > An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> > affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to
> help
> > with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and
> supporting
> > successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> > multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison,
> who
> > will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> > the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While
> an
> > affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> > one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> > committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
> >
> > Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will
> then
> > be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time.
> We
> > welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> > thematic org, or user group moving forward.
> >
> > More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
> >
> > -greg aka varnent
> > Vice-Chair
> > Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [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
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Sydney Poore
In reply to this post by Gregory Varnum-2
Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.

I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that
affiliates find useful.

It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all do
with affiliates and publish the information.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
> (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> recognition process itself concludes.
>
> An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
> with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
> successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
> will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
> affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
>
> Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
> be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
> welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> thematic org, or user group moving forward.
>
> More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
>
> -greg aka varnent
> Vice-Chair
> Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Leigh Thelmadatter
I think this is a good idea, but Im interested in knowing if AffComm intends to have a more responsive way to address petitions for affiliation. There are a number of applications stuck in limbo with no indication of how and when they will be resolved.



> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:36:09 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
>
> Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
>
> I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that
> affiliates find useful.
>
> It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all do
> with affiliates and publish the information.
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement affiliates
> > (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> > community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> > Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once the
> > recognition process itself concludes.
> >
> > An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> > affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to help
> > with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and supporting
> > successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> > multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary liaison, who
> > will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available if
> > the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations. While an
> > affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at least
> > one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to the
> > committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
> >
> > Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will then
> > be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any time. We
> > welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> > thematic org, or user group moving forward.
> >
> > More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
> >
> > -greg aka varnent
> > Vice-Chair
> > Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [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
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Gregory Varnum-2
The short answer is that we are reviewing the recognition and renewal
process for user groups right now and ways to expedite the process further.
Now a longer answer for those that are interested...  :)

This is an almost constant activity for AffCom and several small changes
continue to be made. The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
process to be shortened to a few weeks. We are not yet satisfied with the
process, and the introduction of liaisons is just one of the steps we are
taking to resolve feedback on how we can do better. For example, by
maintaining contact with affiliates after their recognition, we are better
able to discover how that process was perceived. There are several other
complicated issues that have arisen with the initial dozen user groups
(which was expected) which we are also working through to help with the
overall process - such as logo design and usage, process for signing
paperwork, input and conflict with existing affiliates, and the wonderful
diversity of types of user groups and their different needs.

We have learned a lot since the new movement affiliation model was
introduced, and we are applying what we have learned as quickly as busy
volunteers can. As we formalize what changes are being made and what steps
we are taking, many of AffCom's members (myself included) are personally
committed to making sure folks know in as transparent a way as possible. As
was the case with the user group logo RFC, we are also committed to getting
large community input when possible, and always welcome and discuss direct
feedback.

We are steadily moving through any backlog of user group requests. With a
couple of complicated exceptions I do not want to go into on a public list
- the remaining groups "in limbo" are mostly groups that AffCom is waiting
to hear back from. If any group has not heard from us in the past month, I
encourage them to reach out to us directly - [hidden email]

We will also be working to cleanup the various list of affiliates in
discussion as it does not accurately reflect groups actively in discussion.
There will also be improved documentation on the exact process being used
to help remove some confusion on who is responsible for which aspect of the
recognition process.

On a more personal note. A lot of what we are introducing this year was
initiated by my predecessor, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson. As many of you know, we
tragically lost her a few hours after AffCom initially approved this year's
plans. Thanks to WMF, I was able to attend Cindy's memorial service and
speak with her family. I accepted the Vice-Chair role with a commitment to
Cindy's family and AffCom to do my best to help us fulfill Cindy's vision.
While it will take AffCom longer to address these issues than it would have
with Cindy's wisdom and energy - please know that we have a very sincere
desire to continue to improve and serve the movement in the ways we believe
are best.

-greg aka varnent
Vice-Chair
Wikimedia Affiliations Committee




On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I think this is a good idea, but Im interested in knowing if AffComm
> intends to have a more responsive way to address petitions for affiliation.
> There are a number of applications stuck in limbo with no indication of how
> and when they will be resolved.
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:36:09 -0400
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
> >
> > Thank you AffCom committee members for taking on this important new role.
> >
> > I'll be very interested to see the type and amount of support that
> > affiliates find useful.
> >
> > It will make for extra work but I hope you can document the work you all
> do
> > with affiliates and publish the information.
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > On May 29, 2014 3:21 AM, "Gregory Varnum" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Based on continuing changes to Wikimedia's approach to movement
> affiliates
> > > (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups), input from the
> > > community, and discussions with WMF board and staff - the Affiliations
> > > Committee has begun work on expanding our support of affiliates once
> the
> > > recognition process itself concludes.
> > >
> > > An early step that we are taking is to provide each Wikimedia movement
> > > affiliate with at least one liaison from the Affiliations Committee to
> help
> > > with communications, finding resources, answering questions, and
> supporting
> > > successful contributions to the Wikimedia movement.
> > >
> > > Each member of the Affiliations Committee is assigned as a liaison to
> > > multiple affiliates. Each affiliate will be assigned a primary
> liaison, who
> > > will be their main contact, and a secondary liaison, who is available
> if
> > > the primary is not and able to help with more complex situations.
> While an
> > > affiliate's liaisons may change over time, they will always have at
> least
> > > one liaison assigned to them. We will soon be adding more members to
> the
> > > committee, so there are a few liaison assignments not yet filled.
> > >
> > > Liaisons will be making initial contact in the coming weeks - and will
> then
> > > be in contact periodically, or affiliates may contact them at any
> time. We
> > > welcome any feedback or ideas on how we can help support your chapters,
> > > thematic org, or user group moving forward.
> > >
> > > More info - including specific liaison assignments:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
> > >
> > > -greg aka varnent
> > > Vice-Chair
> > > Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [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
> > [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
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

metasj
Quick question:

> The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
> process to be shortened to a few weeks.

When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?

Sam

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Bence Damokos
Hi Sam,

If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
available at the time of application).

However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
the whole AffCom.
After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for
at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.

As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg

Best regards,
Bence

P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
"Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Quick question:
>
> > The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
> > process to be shortened to a few weeks.
>
> When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
> take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?
>
> Sam
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Nathan Awrich
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
> a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
> ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
> available at the time of application).
>
> However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> the whole AffCom.
> After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for
> at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
>
> As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
>
>
Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions?
If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it
be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of
consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an
individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to
distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Gregory Varnum-2
We are moving toward a process that involves 1-2 people primarily and then
a full vote by the committee (which right now procedurally takes one week).

From my perspective, the delays are often related to confusion over the
process, or failure to actually initiate things with AffCom. We have about
a dozen groups in discussion, but who have not yet made contact with
AffCom. Sometimes people are timid or confused about taking the first step
of saying "I (or we) are the contacts for this group and here is what we
would like to do." We are looking into that more and working on some
solutions. I think right now a lot of the problem is related to perceptions
over the process and doubts over the value of completing it (as simple as
it may be). Sometimes it has been a matter as simple as finalizing the
wording of the user group agreement, which gets better each time based on
the feedback and efforts to address the needs.

If the process had no checks or balances, a few groups would have already
been approved that would have been problematic and the desire has been to
avoid the need to retract recognition of a group. As we know - once
something is out there - it is very hard to pull back. We are trying to
find the right balance between providing the right resources and
motivations for becoming a user group - and prevent abuse of the process
which could then lower the perceived value of the user group model - and
potentially the Wikimedia brand. The discussion around the logo is one
example of trying to find that balance. The groups would like some equality
around usage of the trademarks, and the chapters/thorgs would like some
protection of the brand to not harm them when there are geographical
overlaps - and also not burden the user groups with the same
responsibilities of the chapters/thorgs in regards to media relations.

My personal hunch is that the more user groups that apply, the more we will
discover the hurdles and overcome them - which will improve the process
overall. I think what is most helpful is to ask for some patience while we
try to address concerns and figure out the quickest possible process - but
encourage as many interested groups to come forward as possible. It is
through those discussions that we are learning the most and best able to
find solutions. Really, my biggest request, would be for interested user
groups to contact us and officially ask to become a user group - the more -
the better in my humble opinion. Don't worry about the Meta pages or
whatever, we will help with that, just contact us (
[hidden email]) and get the process going.

We are also trying to improve the documentation, communication, and
marketing of the different models. I think a lot of people do not really
understand that we intend for it to be a simple process, and that it is NOT
the same as the chapter or ThOrg process. Some of that confusion is because
a lot of the early applicants hope to one day become a chapter or ThOrg, so
that has externally come off as a more thorough process. We are already
trying to make things like the AffCom page easier to navigate and more
visually appealing. Basically we are following Grants Dept's lead and
Heather W's example.  :)  Right now the user group page looks complicated
and confusing - hopefully that will change soon. Here are some examples of
where we are moving toward:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Liaisons
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Twitter
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

That is my perspective and opinion - others on the committee may see it
differently.  :)

-greg aka varnent


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
> by
> > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
> under
> > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
> being
> > available at the time of application).
> >
> > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> > the whole AffCom.
> > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
> for
> > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
> >
> > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bence
> >
> > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> > deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
> >
> >
> Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions?
> If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it
> be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of
> consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an
> individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to
> distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Sam Klein
In reply to this post by Bence Damokos
Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.


It looks like the main steps are

a) appointing a liaison
b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many)
c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)

with an optional step of
d) reviewing bylaws

Nathan's idea is a good one.  LangCom does something like this for
handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter,
informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically
never exercised) to override over the next few days.


Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:

0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.

1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.

2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
the liaison.  They can approve the group, recommend it for further
review, or reject it as incomplete.

3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for
discussion by the committee.

3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the
result (approve or reject) and the reviewer.  This can be done in
batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single
email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.

3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its
liaison.

This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was
the original goal.  I know that we currently require separately 4)
signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be
simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark
uses to groups that have been approved.


A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition
process, as far as I can see.  AffCom can separately engage groups to
help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.

Regards,
Sam

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
> a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
> ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
> available at the time of application).
>
> However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> the whole AffCom.
> After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for
> at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
>
> As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Quick question:
>>
>> > The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
>> > process to be shortened to a few weeks.
>>
>> When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
>> take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj          w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Bence Damokos
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
> by
> > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
> under
> > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
> being
> > available at the time of application).
> >
> > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> > the whole AffCom.
> > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
> for
> > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
> >
> > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bence
> >
> > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> > deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
> >
> >
> Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions?
> If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it
> be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of
> consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an
> individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to
> distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
>
Yes - I wasn't entirely precise in my description - the process is  lead by
the one or two person (confusingly also called liaisons) assigned to the
case and the rest of the committee allowed to weigh in if there are any
ambiguities or there are any concerns. In extreme cases at the end of the
process, but generally at the various intermediate stages.

In practice, the final resolution phase is where most time could be saved
as that is mostly a structural legacy of housing the process at a committee
that makes public decisions via resolutions;but we try to work out most
issues and concerns beforehand. Making sure that everyone had a time to do
the extra due diligence in addition to the liaisons themselves adds some
time, but can help us avoid recognising groups that are not made up of long
term Wikimedians, are possibly more interested in gaining money, respect or
padding their CVs than furthering the mission or groups that are not going
to stay together as a group for any meaningful amount of time.

(One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early
in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process'
time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they
are and what they want to do.
And also, that my fellow AffCom volunteers are doing a lot - not
necessarily all inside AffCom -, often having multiple responsibilities
inside the movement, in addition to having demanding jobs or families. This
means a couple of things, including the fact that time is limited --- e.g.
 if a volunteer sends an e-mail in the evening before going to bed, even if
there is a very quick reply, they will only be able to react the next
evening [~24 hours later] ---; the shared desire to simplify our processes,
and that we can use all the help we can get to achieve the goals we set
ourselves.)


Again, a fuller picture with roles is given at the graph I shared in the
previous e-mail, which is as of now  non-narrated, but part of the project
to increase transparency around the process and to use as a sort of metric
to aim for and improve over time.

Best regards,
Bence


_______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Leigh Thelmadatter
One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early
in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process'
time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they
are and what they want to do.That has not been our (Wiki Borregos) experience. In fact, responses from AffComm have been quite negative even though we have been very active and very clear on who we are and what we do. We have been stuck with"its complicated" since last year.





> From: [hidden email]
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 21:18:24 +0200
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sam,
> > >
> > > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
> > by
> > > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
> > under
> > > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
> > being
> > > available at the time of application).
> > >
> > > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> > > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> > > the whole AffCom.
> > > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> > > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> > > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> > > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
> > for
> > > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
> > >
> > > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Bence
> > >
> > > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> > > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> > > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> > > deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
> > >
> > >
> > Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions?
> > If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it
> > be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of
> > consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an
> > individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to
> > distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body.
> >
> Yes - I wasn't entirely precise in my description - the process is  lead by
> the one or two person (confusingly also called liaisons) assigned to the
> case and the rest of the committee allowed to weigh in if there are any
> ambiguities or there are any concerns. In extreme cases at the end of the
> process, but generally at the various intermediate stages.
>
> In practice, the final resolution phase is where most time could be saved
> as that is mostly a structural legacy of housing the process at a committee
> that makes public decisions via resolutions;but we try to work out most
> issues and concerns beforehand. Making sure that everyone had a time to do
> the extra due diligence in addition to the liaisons themselves adds some
> time, but can help us avoid recognising groups that are not made up of long
> term Wikimedians, are possibly more interested in gaining money, respect or
> padding their CVs than furthering the mission or groups that are not going
> to stay together as a group for any meaningful amount of time.
>
> (One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early
> in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process'
> time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they
> are and what they want to do.
> And also, that my fellow AffCom volunteers are doing a lot - not
> necessarily all inside AffCom -, often having multiple responsibilities
> inside the movement, in addition to having demanding jobs or families. This
> means a couple of things, including the fact that time is limited --- e.g.
>  if a volunteer sends an e-mail in the evening before going to bed, even if
> there is a very quick reply, they will only be able to react the next
> evening [~24 hours later] ---; the shared desire to simplify our processes,
> and that we can use all the help we can get to achieve the goals we set
> ourselves.)
>
>
> Again, a fuller picture with roles is given at the graph I shared in the
> previous e-mail, which is as of now  non-narrated, but part of the project
> to increase transparency around the process and to use as a sort of metric
> to aim for and improve over time.
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [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
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Gregory Varnum-2
In reply to this post by Sam Klein
SJ,

Aside from the questions being on Meta (which they soon will), and the
one-person authority - this is very close to the process we are working
from now.

Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a request comes in, someone is
assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that person feels okay or
doesn't have questions, they send the info to the group, post a resolution,
and we vote.

Realistically, getting a response to the questions is oddly a much
lengthier process than I would have imagined. We usually try to wait for
confirmation before we post announcements of approvals on-lists, and some
groups do not consider themselves approved until the legal paperwork is
signed. I am working on some Meta-wiki based forms (similar to what grants
does) to allow folks to start the process there rather than via email.

-greg


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Sam Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
> Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
> I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
>
>
> It looks like the main steps are
>
> a) appointing a liaison
> b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many)
> c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)
>
> with an optional step of
> d) reviewing bylaws
>
> Nathan's idea is a good one.  LangCom does something like this for
> handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter,
> informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically
> never exercised) to override over the next few days.
>
>
> Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:
>
> 0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
> apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.
>
> 1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.
>
> 2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
> the liaison.  They can approve the group, recommend it for further
> review, or reject it as incomplete.
>
> 3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for
> discussion by the committee.
>
> 3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the
> result (approve or reject) and the reviewer.  This can be done in
> batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single
> email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
>
> 3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its
> liaison.
>
> This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was
> the original goal.  I know that we currently require separately 4)
> signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be
> simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark
> uses to groups that have been approved.
>
>
> A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition
> process, as far as I can see.  AffCom can separately engage groups to
> help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.
>
> Regards,
> Sam
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made
> by
> > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes
> under
> > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information
> being
> > available at the time of application).
> >
> > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
> > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
> > the whole AffCom.
> > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
> > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
> > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
> > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim
> for
> > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
> >
> > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bence
> >
> > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
> > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
> > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
> > deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Quick question:
> >>
> >> > The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
> >> > process to be shortened to a few weeks.
> >>
> >> When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
> >> take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?
> >>
> >> Sam
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> [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
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          @metasj          w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Gregory Varnum-2
In reply to this post by Leigh Thelmadatter
As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos
application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
process along.

-greg
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Leigh Thelmadatter
We have been doing all of that including the board members for a year now. This is the first bit of information Ive had from you in months.  This seems to work a lot faster.



> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:28:49 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
>
> As Leigh and people who follow this list and others know, the Wiki Borregos
> application has more complications. I do not think rehashing that on this
> public list is the best way to resolve that. Leigh, we are discussing it
> actively now, and you are welcome to email us for an update. You are
> welcome to CC a couple of board members if you feel that will help the
> process along.
>
> -greg
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Carlos M. Colina
In reply to this post by Sam Klein
Hi Sam,


El 29/05/2014 10:18 p.m., Sam Klein escribió:

> Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
> Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
> I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
>
>
> It looks like the main steps are
>
> a) appointing a liaison
> b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many)
> c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)
>
> with an optional step of
> d) reviewing bylaws
>
> Nathan's idea is a good one.  LangCom does something like this for
> handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter,
> informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically
> never exercised) to override over the next few days.
>
>
> Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:
>
> 0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
> apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.
>
> 1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.
By sending an e-mail, any group becomes an affiliate-to-be :)
>
> 2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
> the liaison.  They can approve the group, recommend it for further
> review, or reject it as incomplete.

We generally rotate who takes care of the next incoming request, in
order to balance the workload among all members. We don't want one
member handling 7 applications at the same time, when there is one with
just one (unless the case becomes extremely thorny), right?
>
> 3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for
> discussion by the committee.

We try as much as possible to shorten the discussion phase, but it is
important to gather any concerns that may arise. Sometimes I can see an
application as ready-to-go, but then you see something that I missed,
and which is indeed worth analyzing further.
>
> 3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the
> result (approve or reject) and the reviewer.  This can be done in
> batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single
> email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
As far as I remember, we have not received more than three applications
on a same day.
>
> 3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its
> liaison.
They do :)
> This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was
> the original goal.  I know that we currently require separately 4)
> signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be
> simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark
> uses to groups that have been approved.

I don't think this can be done in those originally expected 15 minutes :-)

Please remember this is all in an ideal situation, as Bence put it
correctly, and that much of the time between each one of the steps taken
can vary depending on how fast the affiliates-to-be respond, the time
the volunteer making part of the AffCom takes, and so on. Again, we
always try to shorten it as much as possible.

>
> A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition
> process, as far as I can see.  AffCom can separately engage groups to
> help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.

Having bylaws is not mandatory for UGs as they do not need to
incoporate. However, if they plan to do so upon recognition, it is worth
reviewing them. Also, in some geographic jurisdictions, they need to
incorporate, so that should be done in parallel in those cases.

> Regards,
> Sam
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by
>> a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under
>> ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being
>> available at the time of application).
>>
>> However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards
>> in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of
>> the whole AffCom.
>> After taking into account such practicalities as limited and
>> non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time
>> across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group
>> processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for
>> at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence.
>>
>> As a breakdown of this idealised process, see:
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bence
>>
>> P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many
>> times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the
>> "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit
>> deeper due diligence somewhere along the line.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Quick question:
>>>
>>>> The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
>>>> process to be shortened to a few weeks.
>>> When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
>>> take no more than 15 minutes.  What currently takes time?
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> [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
>> [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
Vicepresidente, 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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Bence Damokos
In reply to this post by Sam Klein
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
> Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
> I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
>

Thanks Sam - your thinking is always refreshing.

I believe, I and Greg have mentioned a few examples without naming names,
but in general, the question we ask is whether a group is genuine (i.e. are
they who they say they are; are they part of the Wikimedia community), do
they mean well (i.e. do they want to make a quick buck with the name or
some quick grant and disappear, or are they genuinely trying to further the
mission), and often can they be a constructive part of the movement (a sort
of human, interpersonal factor that takes more time to ascertain where
groups that have relationships with other groups or where they have
"non-standard" relationships with us).

Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user
groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined,
but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has
been a "history". Defining this requirement and whether any "non-standard"
(as compared to existing examples) group meets the requirement creates a
whole  meta process in each process where by executing the process we are
defining what the outcome (i.e. user groups) are supposed to be. I wish
this could be a one man job, as there would be so much more agreement, but
perhaps the results would be less optimal then when we rely on the
consensus of a committee with years of experience and a multitude of
viewpoints.

In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into
the process, the better. Unfortunately, those that are first in some way,
will have to live through the meta process while we check the boxes, but
they get to write history the same way supreme court cases do :)

Best regards,
Bence
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons

Bence Damokos
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Sam Klein <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Bence and Greg.  I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
>> Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
>> I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
>>
>
> Thanks Sam - your thinking is always refreshing.
>
> I believe, I and Greg have mentioned a few examples without naming names,
> but in general, the question we ask is whether a group is genuine (i.e. are
> they who they say they are; are they part of the Wikimedia community), do
> they mean well (i.e. do they want to make a quick buck with the name or
> some quick grant and disappear, or are they genuinely trying to further the
> mission), and often can they be a constructive part of the movement (a sort
> of human, interpersonal factor that takes more time to ascertain where
> groups that have relationships with other groups or where they have
> "non-standard" relationships with us).
>
> Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user
> groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined,
> but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has
> been a "history". Defining this requirement and whether any "non-standard"
> (as compared to existing examples) group meets the requirement creates a
> whole  meta process in each process where by executing the process we are
> defining what the outcome (i.e. user groups) are supposed to be. I wish
> this could be a one man job, as there would be so much more agreement, but
> perhaps the results would be less optimal than when we rely on the
> consensus of a committee with years of experience and a multitude of
> viewpoints.
>
> In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into
> the process, the better. Unfortunately, those that are first in some way,
> will have to live through the meta process while we check the boxes, but
> they get to write history the same way supreme court cases do :)
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12