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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

​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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 /

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

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

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

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 >

[Wikimedia-l] WikiConference North America, October 7-10 in San Diego

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