Hi Sam,
El 29/05/2014 10:18 p.m., Sam Klein escribió:
Thanks, Bence and Greg. I appreciate all of the thought going into this.
Can you describe the groups that might have been problematic as UGs?
I think both becoming and stopping to be a UG should be a simple process.
It looks like the main steps are
a) appointing a liaison
b) having some standard questions answered (presumably not many)
c) drafting / approving a resolution (presumably always the same language)
with an optional step of
d) reviewing bylaws
Nathan's idea is a good one. LangCom does something like this for
handling some of their requests - any member can resolve the matter,
informs the committee, and the committee has the option (basically
never exercised) to override over the next few days.
Here's a possible alternate process, for instance:
0) Have a set of standard Meta-form that is filled out in order to
apply. Applicants can answer them without any discussion or liaison.
1) Any group answering those questions becomes a provisional user group.
By sending an e-mail, any group becomes an affiliate-to-be :)
2) Any AffCom member can review the answers from 0, thereby becoming
the liaison. They can approve the group, recommend it for further
review, or reject it as incomplete.
We generally rotate who takes care of the next incoming request, in
order to balance the workload among all members. We don't want one
member handling 7 applications at the same time, when there is one with
just one (unless the case becomes extremely thorny), right?
3.1) If further review is needed, this can take an extra week for
discussion by the committee.
We try as much as possible to shorten the discussion phase, but it is
important to gather any concerns that may arise. Sometimes I can see an
application as ready-to-go, but then you see something that I missed,
and which is indeed worth analyzing further.
3.2) If no further review is needed, the committee is informed of the
result (approve or reject) and the reviewer. This can be done in
batches: if many user groups are created on a single day, a single
email update can note how each group was reviewed, and by whom.
As far as I remember, we have not received more than three applications
on a same day.
3.3) At the same time, the group can ask any questions it has of its
liaison.
They do :)
This would make the process as simple as filling out a form, which was
the original goal. I know that we currently require separately 4)
signing a agreement with the WMF, but I believe this could be
simplified in the future, to automatically grant certain trademark
uses to groups that have been approved.
I don't think this can be done in those originally expected 15 minutes :-)
Please remember this is all in an ideal situation, as Bence put it
correctly, and that much of the time between each one of the steps taken
can vary depending on how fast the affiliates-to-be respond, the time
the volunteer making part of the AffCom takes, and so on. Again, we
always try to shorten it as much as possible.
A bylaws review does not need to be part of the UG recognition
process, as far as I can see. AffCom can separately engage groups to
help them in their development, including such aspects of governance.
Having bylaws is not mandatory for UGs as they do not need to
incoporate. However, if they plan to do so upon recognition, it is worth
reviewing them. Also, in some geographic jurisdictions, they need to
incorporate, so that should be done in parallel in those cases.
Regards,
Sam
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.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quick question:
The ultimate goal is for the user group recognition
process to be shortened to a few weeks.
When the user group model was proposed, the idea was that this should
take no more than 15 minutes. What currently takes time?
Sam
_______________________________________________
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>
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
_______________________________________________
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>
