I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could
be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at
my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we
dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of
Hi,
What surprized me is the bad faith you assumed regarding AffCom and BoT
when during the past weeks I believe we've shown through actions, and not
talks, that we did listen to the feedback and acted on it. The discussion
on wikimedia-l have been really good to read for a few weeks and I would
l
Seriously, it's just board and affcom doing their job ...
And oh surprise, they did not involved the whole communities on temporary
criteria ...
I just want to thanks them for not wasting my time.
I'd rather be involve in the strategy!
2016-08-23 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
> I dont see how a di
>
> 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 t
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:01 AM, 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
> > meeti
I am fundamentally dismayed to read the response that this is not a discussion.
I am baffled. Shutting down discussion is rule #1 in NOT fostering community.
To create a one-way flow of communication with parties engaged enough to take
the time to actively discuss concerns is a non-ideal approa
Hi Brill,
Everything is a discussion. There has been interesting points and
discussions for many mails, and we would like that to continue. Because all
of those opinions are interesting in setting the movement strategy.
Howevere the *temporary* criteria are to be used by AffCom now. So that
AffCo
From the perspective of Wiki Project Med Foundation, I am happy to see
criteria for thorg / chapter status. It makes a previously somewhat unclear
application process more concrete.
James
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Christophe Henner
wrote:
> Hi Brill,
>
> Everything is a discussion. There
