On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Samuel Klein <s...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Also, somewhat unfortunately in my view, there is a requirement for user > > groups is to have a "history of projects", which was not further defined > > but in theory makes it impossible to form a user group before there has > > been a "history". > > I see, thank you for explaining. I believe this refers to the language in > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Recognizing_Models_of_Affiliations > > Would it be more helpful if the clause you mention were changed to > read "an established contact person and a wikipage describing the > group's activity"? I believe that is equally representative of the > thinking behind the resolution. > > If the the Board can remedy unfortunate wording that is slowing things > down, I will propose a change right away. > Yes, that would be an improvement and closer to the current interpretation. > > > In any case, the more automation and simplification we can introduce into > > the process, the better. > > Agreed. :) > > > Greg writes: > > Bence describes it a bit more, but basically a request comes in, someone > is > > assigned it, we ask them some questions, if that person feels okay or > > doesn't have questions, they send the info to the group, post a > resolution, > > and we vote. > > If the process can't be done in a single pass, it's probably too > complicated. > > Compare the process of forming a Meetup group. There are basic > standards of behavior and usage -- applied via review after the fact, > soft-security style -- and measures of activity. But as soon as you > finish filling out a form describing your group, it has been created + > is visible online + has its events included in a global calendar, and > starts to get updates and support. > I might be mistaken, but meetup.com groups cost money to maintain, don't they? (And that might itself be a security feature.) Obviously, having more user groups would be great, but we do not currently know how many are not being created due to the process. It is entirely possible, that the creation of active user groups (without further investments and interventions into seeding communities) is currently maxed out already. Even in the case of review after the fact, we might just be shifting the burden on volunteers down the line in time to prove that they have measured up to the requirements. (On the other hand, it is also a possible hypothesis, that there is a ratio of active to inactive user groups that is "natural", and just by increasing the numbers, we can maintain the ratio and grow the number of active ones.) As there is not enough evidence to suggest that user group status in itself can act as a catalyst where there is not a strong seed of community in place, or that we are failing en masse in recognising those communities that actively seek recognition (we may be slow, but the failure rate should be within normal levels), simply opening the gates will not necessarily going to result in more Wikimedia activity in more places of the world (the ultimate end goal of the exercise). This is not to say that there is no need to simplify the process -- there is lots -- but there should be a holistic picture: there is need for helping communities be created, for helping communities grow, there is need to provide recognition to volunteers, there is need for providing support, resources and advice to existing groups, there is a need to provide some level of oversight [somebody has to read the reports that are being produced at the least] -- we can stress the system by adding hundreds of user groups [the recognition element in the picture] but that will not result in a successful user group model unless we can provide the resources for all the connected services so that we can set them up for success. 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>
