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

[Brill Lyle]

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 *

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Pine W  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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"  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"  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.or

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"  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,