[Wikimedia-l] Re: Affiliations Committee's standing on hubs and its role in the process

[Ilario Valdelli]

The justification of " body of volunteers from across the Movement who have
joined the Committee from various projects and who have a wide range of
experience across opportunities and challenges when Wikimedia groups gather
and formalize" indicates that *any body of volunteers* can "pilot".

At the moment I suppose that you should indicate why Affcom is better than
any other body of volunteers because, as I said, *there are some barriers
to enter in the Affcom* and these barriers don't assure a real variety of
experiences. Specifically I have doubts that Affcom is better than any body
of volunteers.

Kind regards

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 1:43 PM Wojciech Pędzich  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> AffCom’s response here is to a specific Hub pilot project, not necessarily
> the long-term future of Hubs, and hence the initial statement published on
> July 11. AffCom is comprised of a body of volunteers from across the
> Movement who have joined the Committee from various projects and who have a
> wide range I suppose that you should of experience across opportunities and
> challenges when Wikimedia groups gather and formalize.
>
> We do not see the situation in which Hubs are emerging as any threat to
> the communities that already exist.  Hubs, in their structure, can be seen
> as a variety of affiliates who are gathering together to create something
> new. In this manner,  AffCom is definitely in a position to help Hubs grow
> and prosper. While structures similar to the current discussion on Hubs
> have previously existed, there is an advantage in having Hubs work
> officially as structures similar to Affiliates, and this is where the word
> “pilot” comes in. This is intended to indicate the beginning of having Hubs
> as established structures with the current infrastructure of communities
> that already exists.
>
> Kind regards
> Wojciech, on behalf of AffCom
> W dniu 12.07.2022 o 11:13, Gnangarra pisze:
>
> As hubs are not replacing the relationship between affiliates and affcom,
> hubs purpose is to serve its community across multiple countries.  I can
> see the value in Affcom sharing some of its experiences but I caution
> against the building of deeper power structures that widen the gap between
> individual contributors, the BOT, and the WMF.   That gap will get even
> wider once the global council is put in place, there are already
> significant communication problems, made worse by the lack of project
> experience within the WMF staff, its contractors, and the BOT
>
> For many years these hubs have successfully existed outside Affcom
> control, I think there should be greater respect shown to hubs for that
> work treating hubs as pilots is itself disrespectful. Outside of Europe
> where EU law allows cross border responsibility, hubs governance structures
> face considerable legal hurdles from insurance to individuals being
> required to make themselves subject to the laws of another jurisdiction to
> hold a position of responsibility.
>
> 
>
>> This discussion should be naturally a discussion done by the community
>> and not by the Affcom itself, naturally, like it's happening for the whole
>> strategy.
>
> I wholeheartedly support this point, these discussions need to run
> independent Affcom.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 16:34, Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wojciech,
>>
>> thanks for this statement, it will definitely be helpful to have AffCom's
>> insights into the current affiliates network when talking about hubs. While
>> approval by the WMF BoT is one option, wouldn't that require a hub to be a
>> formal organisation? Otherwise the BoT would be involved in micro-managing
>> project grants that are funding some of the hub pilots.
>>
>> It would also be helpful to design the process in a way that has the
>> Global Council in mind where in its absence the WMF BoT acts in its
>> absence, to make clear that this is only a temporary solution because of
>> how slow progress on the movement charter has been in the last two years.
>>
>> Best,
>> Philip
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 20:54, Wojciech Pędzich 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> During the strategic meeting of the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) in
>>> Paris on June 24-26, members discussed how AffCom may be able to support
>>> the movement in relation to the upcoming Hubs pilot process. We reviewed
>>> two issues – whether it was within AffCom’s remit to contribute to the
>>> Hub pilot process and if so, what our involvement might look like.
>>>
>>> AffCom has, since its inception in 2004, worked directly with all
>>> Affiliates across the movement, i.e.: User Groups, Chapters, and
>>> Thematic Organizations. Our role, as it has evolved, is to support these
>>> different entities as they come into being and then as they grow, ensure
>>> that they integrate best practices and with a view to long-term
>>> sustainability. This has provided AffCom with both a broad overview, as
>>> well as a deep understanding, of the various challenges faced by
>>> affiliates 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Affiliations Committee's standing on hubs and its role in the process

[Butch Bustria]

*"Hubs, in their structure, can be seen as a variety of affiliates who
are gathering together to create something new. "*

The definition, scope, metes and bounds of *hubs* will be determined by an
independent body, such as MCDC and codified by a document such as an MC
that is agreed upon through the global community.

When our Roles & Responsibilities WG deliberate on this we intend the hub
function as the word itself, a hub. Never thought to agree with of your
interpretation.


Kind regards,

Butch




On Sun, 17 Jul 2022, 7:43 pm Wojciech Pędzich,  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> AffCom’s response here is to a specific Hub pilot project, not necessarily
> the long-term future of Hubs, and hence the initial statement published on
> July 11. AffCom is comprised of a body of volunteers from across the
> Movement who have joined the Committee from various projects and who have a
> wide range of experience across opportunities and challenges when Wikimedia
> groups gather and formalize.
>
> We do not see the situation in which Hubs are emerging as any threat to
> the communities that already exist.  Hubs, in their structure, can be seen
> as a variety of affiliates who are gathering together to create something
> new. In this manner,  AffCom is definitely in a position to help Hubs grow
> and prosper. While structures similar to the current discussion on Hubs
> have previously existed, there is an advantage in having Hubs work
> officially as structures similar to Affiliates, and this is where the word
> “pilot” comes in. This is intended to indicate the beginning of having Hubs
> as established structures with the current infrastructure of communities
> that already exists.
>
> Kind regards
> Wojciech, on behalf of AffCom
> W dniu 12.07.2022 o 11:13, Gnangarra pisze:
>
> As hubs are not replacing the relationship between affiliates and affcom,
> hubs purpose is to serve its community across multiple countries.  I can
> see the value in Affcom sharing some of its experiences but I caution
> against the building of deeper power structures that widen the gap between
> individual contributors, the BOT, and the WMF.   That gap will get even
> wider once the global council is put in place, there are already
> significant communication problems, made worse by the lack of project
> experience within the WMF staff, its contractors, and the BOT
>
> For many years these hubs have successfully existed outside Affcom
> control, I think there should be greater respect shown to hubs for that
> work treating hubs as pilots is itself disrespectful. Outside of Europe
> where EU law allows cross border responsibility, hubs governance structures
> face considerable legal hurdles from insurance to individuals being
> required to make themselves subject to the laws of another jurisdiction to
> hold a position of responsibility.
>
> 
>
>> This discussion should be naturally a discussion done by the community
>> and not by the Affcom itself, naturally, like it's happening for the whole
>> strategy.
>
> I wholeheartedly support this point, these discussions need to run
> independent Affcom.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 16:34, Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wojciech,
>>
>> thanks for this statement, it will definitely be helpful to have AffCom's
>> insights into the current affiliates network when talking about hubs. While
>> approval by the WMF BoT is one option, wouldn't that require a hub to be a
>> formal organisation? Otherwise the BoT would be involved in micro-managing
>> project grants that are funding some of the hub pilots.
>>
>> It would also be helpful to design the process in a way that has the
>> Global Council in mind where in its absence the WMF BoT acts in its
>> absence, to make clear that this is only a temporary solution because of
>> how slow progress on the movement charter has been in the last two years.
>>
>> Best,
>> Philip
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 20:54, Wojciech Pędzich 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> During the strategic meeting of the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) in
>>> Paris on June 24-26, members discussed how AffCom may be able to support
>>> the movement in relation to the upcoming Hubs pilot process. We reviewed
>>> two issues – whether it was within AffCom’s remit to contribute to the
>>> Hub pilot process and if so, what our involvement might look like.
>>>
>>> AffCom has, since its inception in 2004, worked directly with all
>>> Affiliates across the movement, i.e.: User Groups, Chapters, and
>>> Thematic Organizations. Our role, as it has evolved, is to support these
>>> different entities as they come into being and then as they grow, ensure
>>> that they integrate best practices and with a view to long-term
>>> sustainability. This has provided AffCom with both a broad overview, as
>>> well as a deep understanding, of the various challenges faced by
>>> affiliates across a range of circumstances that include socio-cultural
>>> issues and affiliate-based conflicts. Hubs are intended to function as
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Affiliations Committee's standing on hubs and its role in the process

[Gnangarra]

Hi

Affcom has a conflict in this situation because hubs are not affiliates nor
are they being piloted as hubs have functioned as organisations in their
own right for many years. The word 'pilot' is disrespectful to work that
these hubs have been doing for that time.  I acknowledge Affcom can provide
useful information but it would be more useful if this was done in a
respectful way rather than as a consolidation of and further power grab.

Structurally puting hubs under Affcom means pushing Affiliates and the
contributing community further away from the WMF, that disconnection will
get even wider when the Global Council starts up, if anything hubs should
be separate from Affcom and sit as equals to affcom within the Global
Council.

 Affiliates have their own connections to affcom, where affcom sits in
judgement of affiliates and whether they are worthy of being considered an
affiliate.  Hubs dont sit in judgement, they serve Affiliates by supporting
them in connecting with communities where cultural and regional ties exist.
Hubs also help to support communities where no affiliate exists or is
likely to exist yet they need the access to resources and specific skill
sets.   Hubs also provide a safety net to the contributors within
communities where the affiliate isn't compliant with affcom requirements to
ensure their voices are being heard and engaging with the WMF.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 at 19:43, Wojciech Pędzich  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> AffCom’s response here is to a specific Hub pilot project, not necessarily
> the long-term future of Hubs, and hence the initial statement published on
> July 11. AffCom is comprised of a body of volunteers from across the
> Movement who have joined the Committee from various projects and who have a
> wide range of experience across opportunities and challenges when Wikimedia
> groups gather and formalize.
>
> We do not see the situation in which Hubs are emerging as any threat to
> the communities that already exist.  Hubs, in their structure, can be seen
> as a variety of affiliates who are gathering together to create something
> new. In this manner,  AffCom is definitely in a position to help Hubs grow
> and prosper. While structures similar to the current discussion on Hubs
> have previously existed, there is an advantage in having Hubs work
> officially as structures similar to Affiliates, and this is where the word
> “pilot” comes in. This is intended to indicate the beginning of having Hubs
> as established structures with the current infrastructure of communities
> that already exists.
>
> Kind regards
> Wojciech, on behalf of AffCom
> W dniu 12.07.2022 o 11:13, Gnangarra pisze:
>
> As hubs are not replacing the relationship between affiliates and affcom,
> hubs purpose is to serve its community across multiple countries.  I can
> see the value in Affcom sharing some of its experiences but I caution
> against the building of deeper power structures that widen the gap between
> individual contributors, the BOT, and the WMF.   That gap will get even
> wider once the global council is put in place, there are already
> significant communication problems, made worse by the lack of project
> experience within the WMF staff, its contractors, and the BOT
>
> For many years these hubs have successfully existed outside Affcom
> control, I think there should be greater respect shown to hubs for that
> work treating hubs as pilots is itself disrespectful. Outside of Europe
> where EU law allows cross border responsibility, hubs governance structures
> face considerable legal hurdles from insurance to individuals being
> required to make themselves subject to the laws of another jurisdiction to
> hold a position of responsibility.
>
> 
>
>> This discussion should be naturally a discussion done by the community
>> and not by the Affcom itself, naturally, like it's happening for the whole
>> strategy.
>
> I wholeheartedly support this point, these discussions need to run
> independent Affcom.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 16:34, Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wojciech,
>>
>> thanks for this statement, it will definitely be helpful to have AffCom's
>> insights into the current affiliates network when talking about hubs. While
>> approval by the WMF BoT is one option, wouldn't that require a hub to be a
>> formal organisation? Otherwise the BoT would be involved in micro-managing
>> project grants that are funding some of the hub pilots.
>>
>> It would also be helpful to design the process in a way that has the
>> Global Council in mind where in its absence the WMF BoT acts in its
>> absence, to make clear that this is only a temporary solution because of
>> how slow progress on the movement charter has been in the last two years.
>>
>> Best,
>> Philip
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 20:54, Wojciech Pędzich 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> During the strategic meeting of the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) in
>>> Paris on June 24-26, members discussed how AffCom may be able to support
>>> the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Affiliations Committee's standing on hubs and its role in the process

[Wojciech Pędzich]

Dear all,

AffCom’s response here is to a specific Hub pilot project, not 
necessarily the long-term future of Hubs, and hence the initial 
statement published on July 11. AffCom is comprised of a body of 
volunteers from across the Movement who have joined the Committee from 
various projects and who have a wide range of experience across 
opportunities and challenges when Wikimedia groups gather and formalize.


We do not see the situation in which Hubs are emerging as any threat to 
the communities that already exist.  Hubs, in their structure, can be 
seen as a variety of affiliates who are gathering together to create 
something new. In this manner, AffCom is definitely in a position to 
help Hubs grow and prosper. While structures similar to the current 
discussion on Hubs have previously existed, there is an advantage in 
having Hubs work officially as structures similar to Affiliates, and 
this is where the word “pilot” comes in. This is intended to indicate 
the beginning of having Hubs as established structures with the current 
infrastructure of communities that already exists.


Kind regards
Wojciech, on behalf of AffCom

W dniu 12.07.2022 o 11:13, Gnangarra pisze:
As hubs are not replacing the relationship between affiliates and 
affcom, hubs purpose is to serve its community across multiple 
countries.  I can see the value in Affcom sharing some of its 
experiences but I caution against the building of deeper power 
structures that widen the gap between individual contributors, the 
BOT, and the WMF.   That gap will get even wider once the global 
council is put in place, there are already significant communication 
problems, made worse by the lack of project experience within the WMF 
staff, its contractors, and the BOT


For many years these hubs have successfully existed outside Affcom 
control, I think there should be greater respect shown to hubs for 
that work treating hubs as pilots is itself disrespectful. Outside of 
Europe where EU law allows cross border responsibility, hubs 
governance structures face considerable legal hurdles from insurance 
to individuals being required to make themselves subject to the laws 
of another jurisdiction to hold a position of responsibility.




This discussion should be naturally a discussion done by the
community and not by the Affcom itself, naturally, like it's
happening for the whole strategy.

I wholeheartedly support this point, these discussions need to run 
independent Affcom.


On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 16:34, Philip Kopetzky 
 wrote:


Hi Wojciech,

thanks for this statement, it will definitely be helpful to have
AffCom's insights into the current affiliates network when talking
about hubs. While approval by the WMF BoT is one option, wouldn't
that require a hub to be a formal organisation? Otherwise the BoT
would be involved in micro-managing project grants that are
funding some of the hub pilots.

It would also be helpful to design the process in a way that has
the Global Council in mind where in its absence the WMF BoT acts
in its absence, to make clear that this is only a temporary
solution because of how slow progress on the movement charter has
been in the last two years.

Best,
Philip

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 20:54, Wojciech Pędzich
 wrote:

During the strategic meeting of the Affiliations Committee
(AffCom) in
Paris on June 24-26, members discussed how AffCom may be able
to support
the movement in relation to the upcoming Hubs pilot process.
We reviewed
two issues – whether it was within AffCom’s remit to
contribute to the
Hub pilot process and if so, what our involvement might look like.

AffCom has, since its inception in 2004, worked directly with all
Affiliates across the movement, i.e.: User Groups, Chapters, and
Thematic Organizations. Our role, as it has evolved, is to
support these
different entities as they come into being and then as they
grow, ensure
that they integrate best practices and with a view to long-term
sustainability. This has provided AffCom with both a broad
overview, as
well as a deep understanding, of the various challenges faced by
affiliates across a range of circumstances that include
socio-cultural
issues and affiliate-based conflicts. Hubs are intended to
function as
formal movement bodies constituted by existing groups and/or
affiliates,
able to  use Wikimedia trademarks to present their
association. They
will need to be independent, legally constituted Affiliates,
recognised
by the Board of Trustees. This introduces a significant and
exciting new
Affiliate model to our movement and AffCom would welcome the
opportunity
to bring our institutional knowledge and 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Thanks for the answer, Lauren. I see quite a few interactions with the tweets (despite having more than half a million followers). You say that the engagement is above the industry standard. Is there any data we can use to compare? I'm one of the managers of @euwikipedia and I see we have even more engagement than @wikipedia, so I would like to know which are those industry standards, so we can also measure ourselves.ThanksGalder2022(e)ko uzt. 14(a) 00:56 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Lauren Dickinson ):Hi again — thanks for these comments! I wanted to add that we very regularly refer to the ITN/DYK sections (and OTD, too) when planning out the content calendar and responding to current news and topics. These are great, natural sources of topic inspiration for the Wikipedia channels. As mentioned, we welcome other ideas for articles / topics to share. I understand that the form may not always be the best way to do this. So, I invite you to share ideas and feedback on Meta-Wiki (we just did a light clean up of the page). I am also a member of the Facebook group (Wikimedia social media hub) that Andy shared; I see most posts, but the form and Meta-Wiki are the best way to reach me. For additional perspective, based on the note from Galder, there are currently two staff, including myself working on digital communications strategy at the Foundation, which includes both the Wikimedia and Wikipedia social accounts, as well as our website and blogs. Across all, we prioritize showing up with a consistent voice and identity, so through association, people understand our work better. Our strategy is global and we try hard to give equal weight to topics that reflect the diversity of our world and movement—keeping track of movement happenings, edit-a-thons, user group initiatives, current events, and trends in places across the world. Rather than focusing on putting out a large quantity of content, our goal with each post is to make people understand the diverse work that the movement does and the diverse range of knowledge that can be discovered on Wikipedia. This fosters understanding with those who may not have deep knowledge of how the movement works and what we stand for, but who may want to join us if they did. In addition to our regular content, we must be constantly vigilant and address potential misunderstandings about our work and projects. We monitor social chatter closely and strive to ensure that our content and replies meet the standards that uphold movement values. We track the metrics and impact of our social media efforts and find that our strategy is working well. For example, over the last year, we saw a 7% increase in Wikipedia's Twitter following and a consistent above-average engagement rate when compared to industry standards.Lastly, I'll note that we are planning to discuss our refreshed digital communications strategy with ComCom in the coming months. It includes lessons gleaned over the last two years on how to position community work so that it reaches the right audiences and helps to advance movement goals. One of our focuses is on better amplifying the work of volunteers in the movement, and we are eager to get reactions / ideas on ways we can do this even more. I hope this is all helpful context and information. Thanks again for sharing your ideas and feedback with us. LaurenLauren Dickinson (she/her)Senior Communications ManagerWikimedia FoundationOn Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:24 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  wrote:






Thanks for the answer, Lauren.




I have been looking at the stats of the last 4 weeks in Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, to make an idea of the activity those accounts have. I don't know how many people takes part in the process, but as I read "We" in the answer, I'm going to assume that
 is more than one person to do all of this job.




In Twitter, before my e-mail (after that there was a tweet by Wikimedia Chile that was mentioned by @Wikipedia), the last tweet was two days before. From June 10th to July 10th 34 tweets were done, 5 of them about the concept
 "tea". That makes roughly one tweet a day, but there have been many days without any tweet activity. In Facebook I count 24 posts related to Wikipedia. This is 0,77 posts per day. In Instagram the situation is worse, only 9 posts in one month, is to say, one
 every 3 days. It could be that June 10th to July 10th is a bad moment, but I have looked up previous months, and the trend is the same: most of the days is 1 tweet, there are some days with 0 activity, and some other days
 with 3-4 tweets, usually about the same topic. 





I don't know how long it takes to do that, but based on my experience managing social media, this activity (a tweet a day, 0,7 posts in Facebook a day and 0,3 posts in Instagram, that actually are about the same topic) takes around 30 minutes per day, a little
 bit longer if I need to take extra-extra care to choose the article. I don't know how many workers are in