On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Sam, > > > > If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made > by > > a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes > under > > ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information > being > > available at the time of application). > > > > However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards > > in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of > > the whole AffCom. > > After taking into account such practicalities as limited and > > non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time > > across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group > > processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim > for > > at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence. > > > > As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg > > > > Best regards, > > Bence > > > > P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many > > times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the > > "Affcom seal of approval" to mean something, which in turn requires a bit > > deeper due diligence somewhere along the line. > > > > > Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions? > If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it > be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of > consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an > individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to > distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body. > Yes - I wasn't entirely precise in my description - the process is lead by the one or two person (confusingly also called liaisons) assigned to the case and the rest of the committee allowed to weigh in if there are any ambiguities or there are any concerns. In extreme cases at the end of the process, but generally at the various intermediate stages.
In practice, the final resolution phase is where most time could be saved as that is mostly a structural legacy of housing the process at a committee that makes public decisions via resolutions;but we try to work out most issues and concerns beforehand. Making sure that everyone had a time to do the extra due diligence in addition to the liaisons themselves adds some time, but can help us avoid recognising groups that are not made up of long term Wikimedians, are possibly more interested in gaining money, respect or padding their CVs than furthering the mission or groups that are not going to stay together as a group for any meaningful amount of time. (One has to keep in mind, that we encourage groups to contact us as early in their group creation phase as possible, which means that the process' time will include time spent by the applying group on figuring out who they are and what they want to do. And also, that my fellow AffCom volunteers are doing a lot - not necessarily all inside AffCom -, often having multiple responsibilities inside the movement, in addition to having demanding jobs or families. This means a couple of things, including the fact that time is limited --- e.g. if a volunteer sends an e-mail in the evening before going to bed, even if there is a very quick reply, they will only be able to react the next evening [~24 hours later] ---; the shared desire to simplify our processes, and that we can use all the help we can get to achieve the goals we set ourselves.) Again, a fuller picture with roles is given at the graph I shared in the previous e-mail, which is as of now non-narrated, but part of the project to increase transparency around the process and to use as a sort of metric to aim for and improve over time. Best regards, Bence _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
