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

[Salvador A]

I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to
quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to some
consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be
clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings.

Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates to
meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be unfair
to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and
Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work among
those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg and
Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep affiliate
status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid to
get them dormant.

This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF staff
makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you eligible
to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the
requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every case
if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed.

---
*Possible questions:*

*Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my
recognition as chapter?*

*A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the
situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it.

*Q2: How can I do to avoid this?*

*A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, WMF
or other affiliates help if is needed.

*Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without
activity and nothing had happened so far.*

*A3:* AffCom is already working on it.

---
If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, I'm
sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P

Regards!

2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra :

> Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you
> want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept
> that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you need to
> assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we all
> face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be fair
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Gnangarra,
>>
>> I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things
>> differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision.
>> Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but
>> organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws,
>> real
>> people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress.
>> We
>> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
>> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
>> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
>>
>> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
>> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
>> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
>>
>> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan
>> to return here in a week or two.
>>
>> Pine
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>


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

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

[Gnangarra]

Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you want,
your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, accept that
vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you need to
assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we all
face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always be fair

On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W  wrote:

> Gnangarra,
>
> I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things
> differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision.
> Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but
> organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real
> people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We
> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.
>
> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.
>
> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan
> to return here in a week or two.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

Gnangarra,

I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things
differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision.
Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but
organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real laws, real
people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder progress. We
want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively
requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly complicated
collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part.

I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved in
Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely,
transparently, and fairly in service of the mission.

I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I plan
to return here in a week or two.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/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

[Gnangarra]

​If an affiliate wants guidence to becoming a chapter thats great and
asking for that help as well a receiving it is a positive, yet that is not
whats being asked or discussed it about defining numbers and punishments
for those that dont achieve those numbers.  We  can achieve success within
ourselves without bringing others down.  WP succeeds by working together to
help everyone improve what they are doing.

The final outcome for Cascadia Wikimedians become a chapter should not be
dictated by numbers but the communities desires and those should not be
measured against what others have done, because each chapter is unique with
their own challenges, their own cultures, their own needs and a thousand
others factors.  The only measure should be trust and an assumption of good
faith, hurdles only measure how high someone can jump not how high they
help others jump affiliates are there to help others achieve, Affcom is
there to help affiliates achieve that.

On 23 August 2016 at 10:37, Pine W  wrote:

> I agree that Affcom, as well as WMF, could do more to support affiliates in
> all stages of development. However, the subject of this thread is the
> criteria for chapter and thematic organization status.
>
> Chapter or thematic organization status comes with some privelidges like
> the right to vote for affiliate-elected WMF board seats, and the right to
> send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference unlike the 1 delegate
> allowed per user group. With the privelidges should come some
> responsibilities, like meeting the criteria for chapter or thematic org
> status on an ongoing basis.
>
> As an organization that may want to become a chapter someday, Cascadia
> Wikimedians needs clarity and specificity about the criteria for chapter
> status. I ask AffCom to keep this in mind as it continues to consider and
> develop the criteria for chapter and thematic org status.
>
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

I agree that Affcom, as well as WMF, could do more to support affiliates in
all stages of development. However, the subject of this thread is the
criteria for chapter and thematic organization status.

Chapter or thematic organization status comes with some privelidges like
the right to vote for affiliate-elected WMF board seats, and the right to
send 2 to 4 delegates to the Wikimedia Conference unlike the 1 delegate
allowed per user group. With the privelidges should come some
responsibilities, like meeting the criteria for chapter or thematic org
status on an ongoing basis.

As an organization that may want to become a chapter someday, Cascadia
Wikimedians needs clarity and specificity about the criteria for chapter
status. I ask AffCom to keep this in mind as it continues to consider and
develop the criteria for chapter and thematic org status.

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, 

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

[Brill Lyle]

This is beautifully said. I just love it. 

Thank you!

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 8:13 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> We need to focus on building communities
> 
> To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to
> bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and
> promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide
> x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to
> assist user groups to expand...
> 
> I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates
> could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others
> into submission.
> 
> I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own
> path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates
> than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees
> or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or
> more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference.
> Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers
> 
> On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
> 
>>> Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do
>>> not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
>> for
>>> that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to
>>> meeting standards or losing their status.
>> 
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
>> The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
>> 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
>> 
>> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
>> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
>> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
>> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>> 
>> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
>> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
>> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
>> towards.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Chris Keating
>> User:The Land
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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, 

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

[Gnangarra]

Why do we need to balance numbers against what matters, what is wrong with
trust and assuming good faith its made wikipedia the special thing it is,
we didnt need qualifications to be part of it, we didnt have quotas, we
could all do as little or as much as we liked,  every effort mattered it
created something great, something beyond what had every been done before,
it brought together and nurtured the differences it grew from those
beginnings not because of numbers.  So why change what makes us great, why
put numbers in place of everything else why even try to balance numbers
with what really matters because its what matters that important its what
matters is our goal.

We are because someone once imagined a world where the sum of all knowledge
could shared freely, not because someone once imagined a number and made
everyone else reach that number


On 23 August 2016 at 01:23, James Heilman > wrote:

> I see it a bit both ways. I would hope that the designation "chapter" and
> "user group" reflect at least something about the capacity of the
> organization in question. And organizations change over time so why should
> not their designation? I also agree that not all that matters can be
> measured / quantified. We still need to do what matters even if a nice
> little number cannot be attached to it. The question is how do we balance
> these two.
>
> Jaes
>
>
On 23 August 2016 at 08:13, Gnangarra  wrote:

> We need to focus on building communities
>
> To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to
> bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and
> promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide
> x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to
> assist user groups to expand...
>
> I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates
> could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others
> into submission.
>
> I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own
> path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates
> than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees
> or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or
> more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference.
> Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
>> > Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which
>> do
>> > not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
>> for
>> > that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to
>> > meeting standards or losing their status.
>> >
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/
>> Eligibility_Criteria
>>
>> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
>> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
>> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity
>> in
>> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>>
>> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
>> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
>> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
>> towards.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris Keating
>> User:The Land
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>
>


-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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

[Gnangarra]

We need to focus on building communities

To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to
bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and
promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide
x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to
assist user groups to expand...

I seam to remeber that the Affcom was originally created so Affiliates
could help each other grow, not to give individuals a stick to whip others
into submission.

I would rather a vague criteria, with groups being able to chose their own
path and obtain what ever support they need and see growth in affiliates
than see hundreds of pointless arguments about whether 5 with 100 attendees
or 6 events with 10 attendees is enough when we know that one person or
more precisely one volunteer contribute a to great deal of difference.
Our people or the people are our greatest assets not numbers

On 23 August 2016 at 05:01, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> > Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do
> > not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense
> for
> > that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to
> > meeting standards or losing their status.
> >
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
> 2016/Eligibility_Criteria
>
> That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
> that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
> further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
> the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.
>
> In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
> chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
> working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
> towards.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Keating
> User:The Land
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Chris Keating]

> Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do
> not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense for
> that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to
> meeting standards or losing their status.
>

Hi Ben,

The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Eligibility_Criteria

That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.

In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
towards.

Regards,

Chris Keating
User:The Land
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/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

[Pine W]

Carlos,

I completely agree that resources are a prerequisite for organizational
success.

A group in rural Afganistan will have a much different operating
environment than a group in metropolitan London, and it is more likely that
the group in London will be a chapter. My understanding is that WMF was
thinking along similar lines when it first created the concept of user
groups: that user groups would be easy to set up and have more flexible
configurations.

Why shouldn't a chapter which ceases to meet the admissions criteria for
chapter status be given an opportunity to improve, and if after a certain
period of time the chapter still falls below the criteria, the chapter be
changed to user group status?

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, 

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

[Carlos M. Colina]

Hi Erika,

If a highly valuable community organizer leaves a chapter, or it changes 
it leadership radically, it's not the end of the world. It has happened 
to many of us. And the solution would not be simply "renaming" it from 
Chapter to UG -that's not going to happen.


We have supported chapters that have had issues in the past. But since 
this is a more radical change, a better defined strategy is needed. And 
we're working on it, based on our experience so far, not just as AffCom 
members but with the experience acquired as members of different 
affiliates. Suggestions and all valuable input is always welcome, too :-)


Thanks!


El 22/08/2016 a las 08:50 a.m., Brill Lyle escribió:

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, 



--
"*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 

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: 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

[Carlos M. Colina]

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"  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 

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) 
> 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" >
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" >, "Wikimedia Movement
Affiliates discussion list" >
Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions"
>
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 

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

[Pine W]

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) <
ma...@wikimedia.org.ve> 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" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" ,
> "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" 
> 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 

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

[James Heilman]

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) <
ma...@wikimedia.org.ve> 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" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" ,
> "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" 
> 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 

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

[Carlos Colina (Maor_X)]

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" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
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"  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, 

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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2016 call for Board Governance Committee Volunteer and Advisory members [results]

[Tanweer Morshed]

Great to see such excellent people willing to volunteer. Congratulations to
the board for such initiative and the elected members for their enthusiasm!



Thanks and regards,
Tanweer
Wikimedia Bangladesh

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Great news, thank you so much for all of you for volunteering and to the
> board for taking a novel approach to having more external expertise
> involved :)
>
> Thank you Natalia!
>
> Jan-Bart
>
>
> > On 16 Aug 2016, at 15:47, Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am honestly delighted to announce the results of the public call for
> > Board Governance committee volunteer and Advisory members, announced on
> > July 15, 2016  [1]. We received nine applications, and after discussing
> > them with BGC and reviewing the committee's needs and interviewing a
> short
> > list of candidates,I have chosen five volunteer advisory members for the
> > committee. I'd like to extend my thanks to everyone who offered to serve
> on
> > the committee.
> >
> > Please find below a short introduction for our new volunteer advisory
> > members. They are all quite well known in the movement and I think their
> > insights would be helpful. They join the Committee once they sign the
> > documents that Stephen LaPorte, our Interim Secretary, sent to them (the
> > same ones as the Board members sign - the confidentiality agreement
> >  agreement_of_the_Board_of_Trustees>
> > , code of conduct
> >  the_Board_of_Trustees>
> > , conflict of interest disclosure
> > ).
> >
> > === Gayle Karen Young ===
> >
> > Gayle Karen Young is a WMF's former Chief Talent and Culture office. In
> her
> > time at Wikimedia, she was accountable for building the current HR team
> and
> > had an active hand in board development and staffed the board HR
> committee.
> > She brings experience with the Wikimedia movement, with the workings of
> the
> > Foundation, and through her own consulting work in leadership and board
> > development with organizations in both the for-profit and non-profit
> space,
> > and in technology and human rights.
> >
> > === Kat Walsh ===
> >
> > Kat Walsh is a former member of Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
> > 12/2006-8/2013 (Chair, 2012-2013; Executive Secretary, 2009-2010). Now
> she
> > works as an attorney specializing in copyright, Internet law, and free
> and
> > open source software.
> >
> >
> > === Tim Moritz Hector ===
> >
> > Tim Moritz Hector is Chair of the Board of Wikimedia Deutschland since
> > 2014. Tim has been an active Wikimedian for more than eight years and was
> > engaged in several positions on national and international level. His
> most
> > recent engagement (with Frans Grijzenhout from WMNL) is focussed on
> > building the capacities of board members in all Wikimedia-organizations.
> He
> > is going to finish his B.A. in politics and german philology this month
> and
> > shall work as an advisor to the ED at the "Academy for volunteerism" in
> > Berlin beginning in September.
> >
> > === Ido Ivry ===
> >
> > Ido Ivry is a board member of Wikimedia Israel. He has extensive NGO
> > experience, as well as business understanding, both in large corporates,
> > NGOs, GLAM institution (National Library of Israel), and is currently a
> CTO
> > in his own startup, developing open data solutions for city governments.
> > Ido has been active on the Grants Advisory Committee and as part of the
> > Simple APG Committee, working with many organizations in our movement on
> > carrying out their missions successfully and effectively.
> >
> > === Ira B. Matetsky (User:Newyorkbrad) ===
> >
> > Ira Brad Matetsky (User:Newyorkbrad) is a long-time editor,
> administrator,
> > and former arbitrator on English Wikipedia as well as a board member of
> > Wikimedia New York City.  Professionally, he has been a litigation
> attorney
> > in New York City since 1987.  He has broad experience with board and
> > community governance issues, best practices, and legal requirements from
> > serving with and representing a number of organizations.
> >
> > [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> July/084756.html
> >
> > Best regards,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > ___
> > 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] WikiConference North America, October 7-10 in San Diego

[Andrew Lih]

WikiConference North America 2016
7-10 October 2016, San Diego, CA, USA

SCHOLARSHIP DEADLINE: August 23!

WikiConference North America (formerly WikiConference USA) is the third
annual conference on the North American continent devoted to Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. The weekend will feature both academic and casual
presentations on Wikimedia-related outreach activities, workshops to
improve the skills of grassroots organizers, and discussions on the past,
present, and future of the Wikimedia projects. The conference features
offerings about community outreach, online activity, partnerships with
institutions of knowledge, and technology.

Keynote speakers are scheduled to include Katherine Maher, Executive
Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Merrilee Proffitt, Senior Program
Officer of OCLC Research. The last day of the conference will feature
programming coinciding with Indigenous Peoples' Day.

Registration for the conference is now open.  You can register at https://
wikiconference.org.

Scholarships partially covering costs of travel and attendance are
available for active contributors to Wikimedia projects.  Apply by August
23rd for scholarships at https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2016/Scholarships.

This is a volunteer run conference and volunteers are needed for any number
of tasks.  If you are attending, please consider volunteering for at
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Volunteers.

We seek presentations addressing topics related to Wikipedia or open access
and culture. Presentations may be from any discipline regarding any
relevant topic. Please submit a description of your proposed presentation
using our online submission process at https://wikiconference.org/wiki
/Submissions.  If you are interested in participating in the peer-reviewed
academic track, see our call for academic submissions at https://
wikiconference.org/wiki/Call_for_Academic_Presentations.

- Sydney Poore (User:FloNight) and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
(User:Rosiestep), conference organizers
___
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,