Requests for comment/Chapters. Proposal to give transparency and voice to the communities/Separated comments for each sub-proposal

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Separated comments for each sub-proposal[edit]

The proposal is composed of 4 sub-proposals. Several people stated that they could agree with some parts. Having all of them together also makes difficult focusing the analysis. So I open separated sections for each one of them.

I try to summarize and comment the already given arguments. Please correct or improve them if I misunderstood someone.

Off topic comments like Wikimedia CAT please go to their page.

The chapters have to operate with the confidence of the communities of the projects they wish to promote. Give only the status of chapters for the communities that have earned their trust and ask the communities before approving any chapter.[edit]

Advantages:

The decision is taken with better info, the communities feel they are taken into account for the important decisions and the groups promoting a Chapter start with good first step gaining the communities confidence.

  • I think that's the key point. For me it's incredible that a comunity wants to get organized in order to promote WM projects ans people from outside deny it or the opposite case: a chapter in war with its community, imposing its views. The chapters are tools ro make a good offline work, so they should absolutely depend on the contributors. Thay can/must have not users members, specialized in other tasks than editing, but they cannot form a separated group. The nowaday rules don't help to the purpose of a chapter and in a wiki-base world they could be redone without so much passion, just as a logical effect of communities evolution. --Barcelona 07:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties:

  • Some language communities are larger than those in the territory where the chapter operates. Why should have a voice people from Australia in chapters like UK?
    • Here the decisions are not taken by majority but by the weight of the arguments. If somebody from Australia has a strong argument related to WM UK and is wiling to give it we should be happy to hear it.
  • How to define communities? Chapters not only serve Wikipedia but also sister projects and non linguistic projects like commons.
    • It is not clear there is any problem. Just open a RFC, put a note in the village pump of the projects the chapter wish to serve and hear the voice of the communities.
  • It is hard to agree with having to obtain absolute community consensus to derive the legitimacy of chapters. It may be easy for monolingual chapters, but it becomes difficult for chapters, where under the proposed terms have to consult with nine separate language communities (and growing) just to derive legitimacy, and even more so if those editors are not part of the organization.
    • Not consulting those nine communities doesn’t mean they agree. And perhaps we are losing the opportunity to hear some interesting thoughts and facts that are better seen from their particular point of view. Furthermore it should be easy to do if the chapter is truly ready to properly serve all those communities otherwise perhaps it is better to start with a less ambitious scope with less communities and increase the activities progressively year after year or left part of the job to another chapter.

For[edit]

  1. --Mafoso 08:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Capsot 08:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC), Contributor of the Catalan Wikipedia, the Occitan Wikiccionari and member of Amical.[reply]
  3. --Joanot 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against[edit]

That the chapters have to report their activities regularly to the village pumps of the projects in the languages of the communities they serve.[edit]

For[edit]

  1. --Mafoso 07:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Capsot 09:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Contributor of the Catalan Wikipedia, the Occitan Wikiccionari and member of Amical.[reply]
  3. --Joanot 09:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against[edit]

Comments[edit]

Ideally high the Chapters acts into fisical boundaries and inside them they serve all comunities: the chapters must report their activities regularly to all the village pumps. That's looks not practical. I agree that the chapters must increase their communication with the communities: show the work that the chapters do for the project will improve it and the Chapter could benefit by recollecting the interest of new volunteers.

I think that it could be better first to increase how the chapters activities are shown in meta and look for the way to inform the communities: I suggest something like Commons: Create a/some page/s in every Wiki and show the meta posted information. Then I think that it is part of one chapter's responsibility to inform at the village pumps target of the activities proposed. --Mafoso 07:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... is this suggesting that each individual chapter in an English-speaking area report regularly to every one of the nine English content projects' village pump equivalents? Doesn't that strike anyone as being ... not very helpful? Aren't there chapter reports on Meta for this type of thing? --Yair rand 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That only be kept private the discussions of chapters between them when containing personal data or negotiations with institutions external to Wikimedia movement, that all others can be read publicly. Specifically those addressed to elect members of the Board appointed by the Chapters.[edit]

For[edit]

  1. That's already exposed at WMF the transparency is a value --Mafoso 08:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Capsot 09:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Contributor of the Catalan Wikipedia, the Occitan Wikiccionari and member of Amical.[reply]
  3. --Joanot 09:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against[edit]

That chapters be obliged to yearly renew the confidence of each language community they are serving as a requirement to renew the chapters agreement.[edit]

I have not identified specific comments related to this proposal but perhaps most of what has been said in proposal one can be applied.

If it's is focused at chapters:I think the contract between the foundation and the chapters are renewable annually if it is considered the first proposal seems logical that the renewal of confidence is of the same length.
If it's focused at communities then the community would be able to try the time limit --Mafoso 08:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For[edit]

  1. Time to renew confidence decided by communities--Mafoso 08:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Capsot 09:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Contributor of the Catalan Wikipedia, the Occitan Wikiccionari and member of Amical.[reply]
  3. --Joanot 09:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against[edit]