Talk:Affiliations Committee/Candidates/2023

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Candidates listed[edit]

Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for the feedback. Mothusi Sekhomba (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Xeno (WMF) Thanks for your help with this entire process, including how accessible it is to submit a new application for AffCom. --FULBERT (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Happy to help! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • @Senator Choko and Ilario: Thank you for submitting your applications to join the Affiliations Committee. Your candidate listings are now posted for consideration. Please let me know if you spot any issues. MKaur (WMF) (talk)
  • @Biowikician and Mehman: Thank you for submitting your applications to join the Affiliations Committee. Your candidate listings are now posted for consideration. Please let me know if you spot any issues. MKaur (WMF) (talk)
  • @Notafish, Mwintirew, and Teles: Thank you for submitting your applications to join the Affiliations Committee. Your candidate listings are now posted for consideration. Please let me know if you spot any issues. MKaur (WMF) (talk)
  • @Benoît Prieur: Thank you for submitting your applications to join the Affiliations Committee. Your candidate listings are now posted for consideration. Please let me know if you spot any issues. MKaur (WMF) (talk)
  • @Micheal Kaluba: Thank you for submitting your applications to join the Affiliations Committee. Your candidate listings are now posted for consideration. Please let me know if you spot any issues. MKaur (WMF) (talk)
  • @Hasslaebetch: Thank you for submitting your applications to join the Affiliations Committee. Your candidate listings are now posted for consideration. Please let me know if you spot any issues. MKaur (WMF) (talk)
  • @RebeccaRwanda: Thank you for submitting your applications to join the Affiliations Committee. Your candidate listings are now posted for consideration. Please let me know if you spot any issues. MKaur (WMF) (talk)
  • @Nadzik: Thank you for submitting your applications to join the Affiliations Committee. Your candidate listings are now posted for consideration. Please let me know if you spot any issues. MKaur (WMF) (talk)

A few additional questions to the candidates[edit]

Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion

As far as I know, the whole selection process is solely decided by the Affcom itself. I'm not sure if community endorsement is really necessary or effective here. The questions asked are very open ended and prompt fluffy responses, I found the exact answer to these questions from very few candidates. I'm curious to know the viewpoints of the affcom candidates on certain topics and I'm dropping some questions below.

  • How deep are your insights regarding global and regional social dynamics (aka wikimedia politics) of the Wikimedia movement? Can you share any interesting characteristic of the wikimedia community dynamics that you think everyone should know? I acknowledge that it's not possible for one to know about everything happening in every corner of the Wikimedia movement, but the deeper the understanding is, the better.
  • What are your thoughts on non-affiliate organized wikimedia groups? Are they important for the movement?
  • Do you think that the inputs (wikimedia movement trademarks with other facilities) justify the specific outputs that an affiliate is bound to produce? Do you think the current expected outputs (tho vague in my personal opinion) are in line with the highly increasing brand value of the wikimedia movement trademarks? How do you evaluate that an affiliate is doing what it was supposed to do? What are the qualititative/quantitative variables to evaluate this? While mentioning the list of criteria, keep in mind that sociocultural context can drastically affect the expected level of output from an affiliate.
  • What can be the disciplinary reasons behind the derecognition of any affiliate aside from inactivity? I'm interested to know how your sociocultural background impacts your viewpoint in this matter.
  • Have you read the affcom charter, rules of procedure and derecognition process mapping carefully? What are your thoughts on these documents?
  • Does one affiliate's narratives or actions represent the whole volunteer community that falls under its scope? Why/why not? If no, why there is only one affiliate in one regional or thematic context?
  • What are your thoughts on affiliate-affiliate conflicts and its resolution?
  • What are your thoughts on affiliate-non affiliate (volunteer community or other non-affiliate wikimedia/non-wikimedia organization) conflict and its resolution?
  • Which specific internal and external conflict situations can an affiliate fall into? What should they do in that particular situation and what should they never do? What are the rules to define the border any affiliate should maintain during any conflict? What will happen if they violate them?
  • Don't you think the whole affiliate structure is anyhow harming the wikimedia philosophy of decentralization? Why/Why not?
  • How do the affcom decides whether a proposed affiliate have any overlapping or conflict with other affiliates or not before getting recognized? What are your ideas on these? Do you know about any unambiguous written public document on how to address these overlappings so that the evaluation process doesn't get biased?
  • Does every wikim(p)edian has the right to join one or more affiliate? Why/why not? If yes, how should we ensure that every affiliate has a membership policy that is inclusive enough? If any Wikimedian/Wikimedia group gets in conflict with the regional/thematic affiliate that cover their context and they aren't allowed to take part in that existing affiliate due to the conflict, do they preserve the right to start a new affiliate? Why/why not?
  • How many books have you read about the history of the Wikimedia movement and its dynamics? Would you please list them here if any?

I'll appreciate if the candidates consider answering to at least a few of these questions. -- BIDROHI Hello.. 13:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for raising these important questions , here are my views :
-How deep are your insights regarding global and regional social dynamics (aka wikimedia politics) of the Wikimedia movement? Can you share any interesting characteristic of the wikimedia community dynamics that you think everyone should know? I acknowledge that it's not possible for one to know about everything happening in every corner of the Wikimedia movement, but the deeper the understanding is, the better.
my opinion :: I would evaluate my comprehension of global and regional dynamics at 5 out of 10. A crucial aspect of Wikimedia community dynamics, in my view, is "Collaboration." Recognizing this principle is vital as it offers individuals and the community at large an avenue for learning, unlearning, adapting, and overall growth
What are your thoughts on non-affiliate organized wikimedia groups? Are they important for the movement?
Do you think that the inputs (wikimedia movement trademarks with other facilities) justify the specific outputs that an affiliate is bound to produce? Do you think the current expected outputs (tho vague in my personal opinion) are in line with the highly increasing brand value of the wikimedia movement trademarks? How do you evaluate that an affiliate is doing what it was supposed to do? What are the qualititative/quantitative variables to evaluate this? While mentioning the list of criteria, keep in mind that sociocultural context can drastically affect the expected level of output from an affiliate.
my opinion :
What can be the disciplinary reasons behind the derecognition of any affiliate aside from inactivity? I'm interested to know how your sociocultural background impacts your viewpoint in this matter.
Have you read the affcom charter, rules of procedure and derecognition process mapping carefully? What are your thoughts on these documents?
my opinion :
Does one affiliate's narratives or actions represent the whole volunteer community that falls under its scope?
Why/why not? If no, why there is only one affiliate in one regional or thematic context?
my opinion :
What are your thoughts on affiliate-affiliate conflicts and its resolution?
my opinion :
What are your thoughts on affiliate-non affiliate (volunteer community or other non-affiliate wikimedia/non-wikimedia organization) conflict and its resolution?
my opinion :
Which specific internal and external conflict situations can an affiliate fall into? What should they do in that particular situation and what should they never do? What are the rules to define the border any affiliate should maintain during any conflict? What will happen if they violate them?
my opinion :
Don't you think the whole affiliate structure is anyhow harming the wikimedia philosophy of decentralization? Why/Why not?
my opinion : I dont think so.
How do the affcom decides whether a proposed affiliate have any overlapping or conflict with other affiliates or not before getting recognized? What are your ideas on these? Do you know about any unambiguous written public document on how to address these overlappings so that the evaluation process doesn't get biased?
Does every wikim(p)edian has the right to join one or more affiliate? Why/why not? If yes, how should we ensure that every affiliate has a membership policy that is inclusive enough?
my opinion : Every participant in Wikimedia has the right to join one or multiple affiliates. To guarantee a consistent membership policy across all affiliates, it is necessary to include explicit clauses regarding membership in the current drafting of the Movement Charter by the broader community.
If any Wikimedian/Wikimedia group gets in conflict with the regional/thematic affiliate that cover their context and they aren't allowed to take part in that existing affiliate due to the conflict, do they preserve the right to start a new affiliate? Why/why not?
my opinion : In that case , I would advice that individual to go through a conflict resolution pathway instead of initiating a new affiliate to avoid duplication of efforts.
How many books have you read about the history of the Wikimedia movement and it's dynamics? Would you please list them here if any?
my opinion : ɴᴅᴀʜɪʀᴏ ᴅᴇʀʀɪᴄᴋ 🐎 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

My opinion/answers[edit]

  • @Mrb Rafi:
  • Which specific internal and external conflict situations can an affiliate fall into? What should they do in that particular situation and what should they never do? What are the rules to define the border any affiliate should maintain during any conflict? What will happen if they violate them?:Situations of Internal Conflict:

Leadership Disputes: If there are disagreements among affiliate leaders, they must be resolved in a transparent and democratic manner. Encourage open dialogue and, if required, hold elections or refer to bylaws.

Conflicts between affiliate members should be managed through internal dispute resolution methods that ensure fairness and openness.

Financial Mismanagement: When financial conflicts or mismanagement arise, the affiliate should undertake a thorough audit, rectify the concerns, and follow financial transparency requirements.

  • Situations of External Conflict:

When dealing with difficult external partners, affiliates should speak honestly and seek amicable resolutions. Avoid making agreements or engaging in actions that contradict Wikimedia's ideals.

Copyright Violations: Adhere to Wikimedia's copyright policies and endeavor to settle the matter legally and ethically if there are copyright disputes involving content utilized or developed by the affiliate.

  • Guidelines/rules;

Maintaining transparency in all activities and decisions. Share knowledge and take responsibility for your actions.

Values Adherence: Always adhere to Wikimedia's values, such as free knowledge and neutrality. Avoid taking acts that contradict these ideals.

Internal Processes: When resolving issues, adhere to established internal processes, bylaws, and governance structures.

Lastly,If an affiliate violates these principles or engages in behaviors that are detrimental to Wikimedia's goal or reputation, the penalties may include warnings, loss of recognition, or even legal action, depending on the severity of the violation. The Wikimedia Foundation and affiliated groups have devised procedures for resolving disputes and enforcing rules and guidelines. Senator Choko (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Senator ChokoReply

2. What are your thoughts on non-affiliate organized wikimedia groups? Are they important for the movement? Non-affiliated Wikimedia groups can play an important role in the Wikimedia movement. These groups, sometimes known as user groups, thematic organizations, or chapters, help the movement achieve its aims by organizing events, assisting local communities, and lobbying for free knowledge. They can contribute to the growth and success of Wikimedia projects by fostering diversity, inclusivity, and local engagement. While they may not have the same level of official recognition as Wikimedia chapters, they are nonetheless vital for promoting the ideas of open cooperation and free knowledge. These organizations frequently contribute a grassroots perspective, specialize in specialist or regional topics, and can assist bridge the gap between the Wikimedia Foundation and local communities. Their work supplements the efforts of established affiliates, expanding the movement's global contributor network. As a result, non-affiliate Wikimedia groups are critical to the movement's decentralization, adaptability, and community empowerment. Senator Choko (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Senator ChokoReply

3. How deep are your insights regarding global and regional social dynamics (aka wikimedia politics) of the Wikimedia movement? Can you share any interesting characteristic of the wikimedia community dynamics that you think everyone should know? The Wikimedia movement is a global endeavor devoted to the creation and upkeep of free and open educational content, most notably Wikipedia. Here are some essential aspects of its dynamics:

Volunteer-Driven: To generate and modify material, the Wikimedia movement relies largely on volunteers from all over the world. These volunteers come from a variety of fields and give their expertise to Wikimedia projects.

Openness: Anyone can edit Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, and other projects, with the goal of establishing a comprehensive and unbiased source of knowledge. This openness, however, comes with it issues like as vandalism and content quality monitoring.

Decentralized Governance: The movement's governance system is decentralized. Instead of a centralized authority, key choices are determined by community consensus. This has both advantages and disadvantages because it allows for diversity but can occasionally lead to disagreements and difficulty in decision-making.

Wikimedia projects are available in many languages and have a global reach, making knowledge available to individuals all over the world. This multilingual method promotes cultural diversity and equity of knowledge.

Community Values: The Wikimedia community is founded on fundamental principles like as neutrality, verifiability, and the quest of information for the sake of knowledge. These values guide the creation and editing of material.

  • Characteristics:The movement's decentralized and volunteer-driven nature is an intriguing feature. Without a centralized authority, many contributors from around the world collaborate to produce and update Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. This one-of-a-kind paradigm promotes diversity, but it can also provide difficulties in decision-making and governance within the community. I think everyone should know about these characteristics... Senator Choko (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Senator ChokoReply

My Opinion/Answers to the Additional Questions[edit]

  • How deep are your insights regarding global and regional social dynamics (aka wikimedia politics) of the Wikimedia movement? Can you share any interesting characteristic of the wikimedia community dynamics that you think everyone should know? I acknowledge that it's not possible for one to know about everything happening in every corner of the Wikimedia movement, but the deeper the understanding is, the better.
    • Regarding global and regional social dynamics within the Wikimedia movement, it's a complex and highly decentralized community with diverse perspectives and objectives. Some interesting characteristics to consider:
    • Consensus-Driven: Wikimedia community decision-making often relies on consensus-building, which can be time-consuming but aims to ensure inclusivity and avoid top-down governance.
    • Global Collaboration: Wikimedia projects involve contributors from around the world, and this diversity can lead to a rich tapestry of content and viewpoints.
    • Community-Led: The Wikimedia movement is primarily driven by volunteers who are passionate about free knowledge. These volunteers play a central role in shaping the movement's direction.
    • Challenges in Governance: Balancing autonomy at the regional level with coordination at the global level can be a delicate challenge, requiring ongoing dialogue.
    • Core Values: The Wikimedia movement is united by core values, including a commitment to open knowledge, free access, and neutrality, which guide its work.
  • Do you think that the inputs (wikimedia movement trademarks with other facilities) justify the specific outputs that an affiliate is bound to produce? Do you think the current expected outputs (tho vague in my personal opinion) are in line with the highly increasing brand value of the wikimedia movement trademarks? How do you evaluate that an affiliate is doing what it was supposed to do? What are the qualititative/quantitative variables to evaluate this? While mentioning the list of criteria, keep in mind that sociocultural context can drastically affect the expected level of output from an affiliate.

Evaluating the outputs of Wikimedia movement affiliates and assessing whether they justify the use of Wikimedia trademarks is a complex task, influenced by a range of factors, including sociocultural contexts. To address this, several criteria can be considered:

Alignment with Mission and Values: The primary criterion should be how well an affiliate's outputs align with the Wikimedia movement's mission and values. The outputs should contribute to the creation and dissemination of free knowledge.

Community Engagement: Assessing an affiliate's engagement with its community is crucial. This includes not only quantitative metrics like the number of contributors but also qualitative aspects, such as the inclusivity of the community and the level of participation.

Content Creation and Quality: The quantity and quality of content created and improved is a significant measure. Outputs could include articles, media, and other knowledge resources.

Educational Initiatives: The effectiveness of educational programs and initiatives in spreading Wikimedia's values and knowledge should be evaluated.

Advocacy and Awareness: Assessing the impact of advocacy efforts in promoting open knowledge and the Wikimedia mission is essential.

Impact on Sociocultural Context: As you correctly noted, sociocultural context can affect expected output. Therefore, assessing an affiliate's impact in its specific sociocultural context is vital. This may include both quantitative and qualitative metrics that are sensitive to local dynamics.

Transparency and Reporting: The affiliate's transparency in reporting its activities and achievements is crucial. Clear documentation of outputs and outcomes is essential.

Inclusivity and Diversity: The extent to which the affiliate promotes inclusivity and diversity within its community and projects is another critical criterion.

Financial Accountability: Evaluating financial management and accountability to ensure that resources are used effectively.

Long-Term Sustainability: Assessing an affiliate's plans for long-term sustainability and its capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.

To address the question of whether the current expected outputs are in line with the increasing brand value of Wikimedia trademarks, i feel it's essential to have a balance. While increased brand value indicates the importance of maintaining high standards and expectations, it's also vital to recognize the diverse sociocultural contexts within which affiliates operate. The evaluation criteria should be adaptable and consider the local context.

  • Does one affiliate's narratives or actions represent the whole volunteer community that falls under its scope? Why/why not? If no, why there is only one affiliate in one regional or thematic context?
    • No, one affiliate's narratives or actions do not represent the entire volunteer community that falls under its scope within a regional or thematic context. The Wikimedia movement is highly diverse, with a multitude of perspectives, interests, and goals among its volunteer contributors. Here's why:

Diversity of Perspectives: The Wikimedia movement encompasses a global network of contributors from various cultures, backgrounds, and experiences. Within a given region or theme, there is likely to be a wide range of opinions and priorities. One affiliate cannot fully represent this diversity of perspectives.

Volunteer Autonomy: Wikimedia affiliates are meant to empower local or thematic communities to self-organize and pursue their goals autonomously. Each affiliate may have a unique approach, objectives, and community dynamics.

Varied Interests and belief: The Wikimedia movement covers a vast array of subjects and languages. Each affiliate may focus on specific topics or languages that are of particular relevance to their region or theme. This specialization reflects the varied interests of the volunteer community.

The existence of multiple affiliates in a regional or thematic context is not necessarily discouraged but rather embraced. It allows for more focused and specialized efforts, fosters local leadership, and promotes the rich diversity of the Wikimedia movement. It's important to recognize that the presence of multiple affiliates does not imply uniformity of perspectives or actions within a given context. Instead, it reflects the movement's commitment to local autonomy and the adaptability of the model to diverse community needs.

    • These documents are foundational for the governance and integrity of the Wikimedia movement, providing the necessary structure and processes for the Affiliations Committee to carry out its responsibilities effectively. They support the movement's commitment to free knowledge and the empowerment of Wikimedia affiliates in their respective contexts.

Lebron jay (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

My Opinion/Answers to the Additional Questions[edit]

(User:Nwonwu Uchechukwu P)

  • How deep are your insights regarding global and regional social dynamics (aka wikimedia politics) of the Wikimedia movement? Can you share any interesting characteristic of the wikimedia community dynamics that you think everyone should know? I acknowledge that it's not possible for one to know about everything happening in every corner of the Wikimedia movement, but the deeper the understanding is, the better.

My insights regarding Wikimedia politics may not be so deep but I know from experience that the Wikimedia politics is decentralized both regional and globally. One interesting characteristic of the wikimedia community dynamics that I think everyone should know is that it is decentralized in nature. This means that in the Wikimedia movement, decisions are not made by a central governing body, rather there is division of labour. The decision making process is distributed across various levels within the Wikimedia movement. Therefore, due to this decentralisation, the Wikimedia politics is inclusive as diverse volunteers and contributors around the world are included in the decision making process through collaborative discussion.


  • What are your thoughts on non-affiliate organized wikimedia groups? Are they important for the movement?

Non-affiliate organized Wikimedia groups are really important for the movement because they contribute to making Wikimedia inclusive. Through diverse perspectives, they cater to specific interests and regions by helping to expand the reach of Wikimedia projects. I believe these groups should be recognised and supported in order to maintain a dynamic movement committed to free knknowledge.


  • What can be the disciplinary reasons behind the derecognition of any affiliate aside from inactivity? I'm interested to know how your sociocultural background impacts your viewpoint in this

The derecognition of any affiliate can occur due to various disciplinary reasons, which is not limited to inactivity. Some potential reasons include:

  • Violations of Wikimedia policies: Constant violations of Wikimedia Foundation policies or guidelines by any affiliate could lead to derecognition, because every affiliate group is expected to follow the WMF policies without violation.
  • Misuse of funds: An affiliate may face disciplinary action if it is found misusing funds or engaging in financial misconduct,
  • Harassment or discrimination: Every affiliate is expected to treat everyone with respect and equally, therefore if instances of harassment, discrimination, or any behavior that violates the principles of inclusivity and respect arises, it may result in disciplinary measures.

Moreover, my sociocultural background impacts my viewpoint in this context by shaping my values and priorities. For instance, I come from a culture that places high importance on rule-based governance, and I prioritise strict adherence to predefined policies. This cultural values, has shaped my viewpoint by emphasising the importance of following established guidelines in disciplinary matters. I also place high importance in inclusivity, therefore I emphasize collective decision making in disciplinary matters.


  • Have you read the affcom charter, rules of procedure and derecognition process mapping carefully? What are your thoughts on these documents?

Yes, I have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the AffCom charter, rules of procedure, and derecognition process mapping. I found them to be well-crafted and comprehensive. The clarity in outlining roles, procedures, and the derecognition process provides a strong foundation for the committee's operations. I particularly appreciate the clear criteria for derecognition, as it contributes to a more effective and transparent committee governance.


  • Does one affiliate's narratives or actions represent the whole volunteer community that falls under its scope? Why/why not? If no, why there is only one affiliate in one regional or thematic context?

No, one affiliate's narratives or actions does not represent the entire volunteer community that falls within its scope because the Wikimedia movement is characterized by its diversity, with a multitude of volunteer contributors who have varied interests, perspectives, and approaches. Also because each affiliate operates independently and may have its own unique goals, methods, and community dynamics. Moreover, there are several reasons why there is only one affiliate in one regional or thematic context and one of the reasons maybe the diversity in Language and Culture. Affiliates often align with linguistic or cultural groups, providing a space for contributors who share a common language or cultural background. For example, we have the Yoruba and Igbo affiliate groups who contribute on each of the language Wikipedia.


  • What are your thoughts on affiliate-affiliate conflicts and its resolution?

It is normal for conflicts to arise between different Wikimedia affiliates, such as user groups, or thematic organizations within the Wikimedia movement.These conflicts may arise due to differences in goals, priorities, or community engagement approaches. However, there are several ways to effectively address and resolve such conflicts. It is essential to have clear conflict resolution protocols in place to guide the process. Also, during the resolution, there should be a platform for constructive dialogue where the conflicting affiliates can express their concerns and work towards mutual understanding. Additionally, the affiliate committee can play a crucial role in the mediation process, because by helping to facilitate discussions there will be no partiality and they will also help to foster an environment where affiliates can collaboratively resolve their differences and work towards resolution.


  • What are your thoughts on affiliate-non affiliate (volunteer community or other non-affiliate wikimedia/non-wikimedia organization) conflict and its resolution?

Conflicts may arise between affiliate and non affiliate groups and this may be due to difference in community engagement, projects, and content. It may also be because of the differences in the goals of both organisation. However, when disagreements or any form of conflict arises, it is crucial for everyone involved to share their views by engaging in an open dialogue and also work together to find solutions, and if disagreements persist, they may seek help from a third party will neutrally facilitate discussions and help them find a common ground.


  • How many books have you read about the history of the Wikimedia movement and its dynamics? Would you please list them here if any?

I haven't read any specific book about the history of the Wikimedia movement and its dynamics. The things I know about movement comes from information available on the Wikimedia Meta page and from physical training events.

Reply from Teles[edit]

  • What are your thoughts on affiliate-affiliate conflicts and its resolution?
    • It is not desired, but that is expected to happen and we should be prepared to deal with them. It is important to listen to both parties and make sure that we are able to double-check what is being said, preferably before things escalate. It is usually harder to solve conflicts when they share a common interest. So, it is best to work preemptively. Creating user groups that share same interest, geography, theme, may generate conflict if not taken with care. I have followed AffCom's management of such issues and I could notice that there are relevant advancements when comparing with how it was dealt with years ago. Not only by taking measures before hand, but also acknowledging that they needed improvements, more work force. I can't say it is perfect, but I applaud the evolution.
  • What are your thoughts on affiliate-non affiliate (volunteer community or other non-affiliate wikimedia/non-wikimedia organization) conflict and its resolution?
    • That is also an area of my interest. I have been on both sides. As an affiliate member, I have engaged new users to join wiki projects by participating on edit-a-thons, photo contests, and sometimes it creates too much frustration from them. I also have acted as editor watching pages being changed by newcomers participating of similar contests, students working on a topic as a result of a partnership between an affiliate and a school. I could notice that the best experiences happened when there were a strong participation of those affiliates before hand, trying to help newcomers to understand the basics of our editorial rules. Also, working with regular editors for trying to be more comprehensive and helpful, rather than biting newcomers. Thus, the most important thing on those issues is communication. It is part of the affiliate work to know their editorial community and foresee possible problems. Only by knowing that, they can be avoided and efforts are not transformed in frustration.
  • Don't you think the whole affiliate structure is anyhow harming the wikimedia philosophy of decentralization? Why/Why not?
    • That's a good point. Simple answer is "no", but we know that this can happen if we don't preserve our principles. It is expected from any group the possibility for new users to join. They should be inclusive. They should help community to work their best, reporting what are their needs regardless of having or not membership on the group. Affiliates don't speak on behalf of the broad community, but they have means to reach places and report local issues that other communities would never know. So, it is about improving local communities so that can work better, and even create other groups if that is considered a healthy step.

Thanks for the questions. I choose three of them and tried not to be too long. Feel free to reply.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 02:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

A few additional questions to the candidates (KuboF Hromoslav)[edit]

  • Wikimedia politics: Cool question! About measuring, well, I do not know any widely accepted meter for that :-) I don't have an overview of the Wikimedia gosip or petty people politics. A super interesting charactristic is the "wiki way" in which we do things. The emergence. That we do not need some highest possitioned boss to start some project, but some randon internet guy that even do to bother to login, just start writing some page and other people join and together create something crazy cool! This is an emergence in practice and we can be proud about how it goes in Wikimedia world!
  • Non-affiliated groups: Well, I myself have co-founded, co-incorporated and lead a non-affiliated Wikimedia organisation for 7 years, so I may be biased :-) I have even repeatedly received feedback, that we are doing more work than some chapters, what was really encouraging. But the reason stemed from the change of affiliation models in 2013 and we was 1 of the 2 groups that was considered on ad-hoc basis. Now it is different, at least in the terms of reason to not be affiliated. My opinion: organized Wikimedia groups are cool, not matter whether affiliated or not. If they oppose being affiliated on principle, or have compared the pros and cons of affliation and decided to not seek affiliation, that is okay. As long as their activity is not against the Wikimedia vision / mission, they are okey. I would ask why they are not affiliated - maybe they want to be, but there is some structural obstacle in how the affiliation system works, that can be possibly removed. And maybe it is great that there is that obstacle, becuase thanks to it, there can be something else that creates more value. We would need to research more in depth. For me, everyone who positively contributes to the Wikimedia mission is important to the movement. We can discuss the amount of positive contribution and its effectivenes in comparision of affiliated and non-affiliated groups, maybe even map which acctivites are better done by affiliated and which by non-affiliated groups. But I can really see that being non-affiliated group can be more beneficial that being incorporated in some / many situations.
  • Inputs and outputs of affiliations: I consider, that providing the mentioned inputs is generally well worth the expected outcomes. Is an affiliation becames inactive or in violation of its affiliation agreement and code of conduct, AffCom have strong enought tools to stop providing the inputs. My personal basis for evaluation of affiliation is its affiliation agreement. In case of some edge stuff, we can evaluate them on case-by-case basis.
  • Disciplinary reasons for derecogntion: The most obvious for me is a long-term violation of its affiliation agreement and code of conduct, after reasonable notifications and help provided. This is rather wide. Some examples are: no reporting to the WM movement; violation of their own bylaws about things that they previously have done or long-term violations of some specific part of bylaw (after some reasonable time they should have learn); mispresenting themself as agents of WMF, etc.
  • AffCom documents: I haven't read them carefully yet.
  • Representation: Affiliation (including their naratives and actions) clearly do not per se represents the community of their scope (unles the community decide so). It is because affiliations and communities in their scope are not bound by some agreement of representation, so in place is the default state of non-representation. That could be changed, but for now I oppose such change. Unfortunatelly, there is a potential for the fallacy of composition. One Chapter per region / Thematic organisation per topic are representing that particular scope (not the community!) for WMF and WM movement.
  • Affiliate-affiliate conflicts: Conflicts are hard topic. They are part of the physical reality and happen. In the first place, I would question what is the core of the conflict - is it personal conflict, conflict of scope, conflict of name or other resources...? I prefer when affiliates are capable of solving such conflicts betwen them by integrating their plarities into some higher whole. That is beautiful! Currently, for such conflict resolution can be asked AffCom. But I doublt AffCom's capacity to do so reasonably and efficiently. Maybe we should rethink it.
  • Affiliate-non affiliate conflicts: That is very close to me as I am in long-standing conflict with one User Group. The group is long-term violating their bylaw and its User Group agreement and Code of Conduct and I strongly support them to stop these violations and do corrective actions. In fact, this specific conflict was the first step that bring me to this candidacy :-) I dream about the future where the movement can efficiently solve / help to solve such and other conficts. Beyond what I have stated above, I suppose that it will need better investment into capacity development of WMF, AffCom, affiliations and communities. Fortunatelly, I know some cool online enciklopedia and collaboratively written text-book project ;-)
  • Conflicts and borders: This is very wide question, so I will answer only generaly. Some examples: violations of bylaw, accusations, violations of affiliation agreement, no reporting, strugle for power, conflicting opinions about the best course of action, conflict of personal needs (e.g. more activists to do more work, or less activists to be in intimate group of friends), violating national law etc etc. What should be done super depends on the specific situation. Best IMO is to integrate the conflicting things into functional higher whole (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). When it comes to corrective actions, I generaly recomend acknowledgement, clarification, appology, proposal for how to deal with such situation in future. The border is intternational and national law requirements, affiliation agreement and Code of Conduct, similar WM documents, (if they have) affiliation bylaw and internal regulations.
  • Decentraliastion: That is bit loaded question... It may be harming the decentralisation in some way. But unless affiliation system or some speific affiliaiton prevents a decentralised action, I tend to consider the system to be reasonably balancing needs for higher results from centralised action with tthe freedom for decentralised action.
  • Overlaps and conflicts with other affiliations: I do not know the current AffCom practise on that.
  • Right to join: Well, depends on the definition of such "right". Affiliations are to huge extend self-organised and can decide whom to accept and whom not. Even WMF or AffCom can not force them to do so (WMF / AffCom can decide to derecognize the affiliation if such refusal or acceptance would constitued violation of affiliation agreement, thou). Every Wikimedian in good standing can start a new affiliation. Conflict with some affiliation does not per se makes the Wikimedian or affiliation to be in bad standing. I would prefer if those could solve the conflict. But if not, let's improve wikimedia movment by another affiliation (if they want / are wiling to)!
  • Books: 0 books. I got such information mostly from some random archive page on Meta or in random discussion during international meetings. If you want to find it, I can tell you a joke, that it is on Meta ;-)

--KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

A few additional questions to the candidates (Macocobovi)[edit]

  • What can be the disciplinary reasons behind the derecognition of any affiliate aside from inactivity? I'm interested to know how your sociocultural background impacts your viewpoint in this matter.

Aside from affiliate's inactivity, there are other disciplinary reasons behind their derecognition which include but not limited to; failing to carry out Key Responsibilities and Obligations, violation of Wikimedia code of conduct and violation of their own bylaws.

Yes, they clearly relay what is expected of AffCom members, from their purpose, responsibilities, structure and dealings with look warm affiliate groups.

  • Does one affiliate's narratives or actions represent the whole volunteer community that falls under its scope? Why/why not? If no, why there is only one affiliate in one regional or thematic context?

Yes. The actions of the affiliate affect the volunteer community because the volunteers made up the affiliate.

  • Don't you think the whole affiliate structure is anyhow harming the Wikimedia philosophy of decentralization? Why/Why not?

No. The affiliate structure is not in any way harming the Wikimedia philosophy of decentralization. The idea of decentralization is that there are certain decisions which can be taken at the local level. And with this in place, the Wikimedia Foundation will come in when a/some decisions are threatening its philosophy, mission and vision. Hence, the Foundation has ample of time to work and strategies on how to better the movement rather than making every decision for the affiliates of different regions with different cultures and traditions, different field and languages.

Macocobovi (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC+1)

A few additional questions to the candidates (@Hasslaebetch)[edit]

  • How deep are your insights regarding global and regional social dynamics (aka wikimedia politics) of the Wikimedia movement? Can you share any interesting characteristic of the wikimedia community dynamics that you think everyone should know? I acknowledge that it's not possible for one to know about everything happening in every corner of the Wikimedia movement, but the deeper the understanding is, the better.


One of the most important social dynamics in the Wikimedia movement is the tension between the desire for consensus and the need for efficiency. Wikimedia projects are often based on a consensus-driven model of decision-making, which can be slow and cumbersome. However, this model is also important for ensuring that all voices are heard and that decisions are made in the best interests of the project. Another important social dynamic is the tension between the need for centralized policies and the desire for local autonomy. Wikimedia projects are often organized into different language communities, each with its own set of rules and norms. This can lead to conflicts between local communities and the Wikimedia Foundation, which is responsible for setting centralized policies.Despite these challenges, the Wikimedia movement is a thriving community that is making a significant impact on the world. Wikimedia projects are used by billions of people around the world, and they are playing an increasingly important role in the global conversation about knowledge and access to information. I believe that it is important for Wikimedians to be aware of the social dynamics that shape them. By understanding these dynamics, they can better manage conflicts, make more informed decisions, and build stronger communities.


  • What are your thoughts on non-affiliate organized wikimedia groups? Are they important for the movement?


Non-affiliate organized Wikimedia groups are valuable contributors to the Wikimedia movement. They provide a way for people to get involved in the movement without having to go through the formal process of becoming a Wikimedia affiliate. They also play an important role in promoting Wikimedia projects and raising awareness of the importance of free knowledge. benefits of non-affiliate organized Wikimedia groups: They are more flexible and nimble than Wikimedia affiliates. This means that they can respond quickly to new opportunities and challenges. They are more likely to be connected to local communities. This means that they can tailor their activities to the specific needs of their community. They are more likely to be experimental and innovative. This means that they can come up with new ways to promote Wikimedia projects and reach new audiences. Of course, there are also some challenges associated with non-affiliate organized Wikimedia groups. One challenge is that they may not have the same level of resources as Wikimedia affiliates. Another challenge is that they may not have the same level of recognition and legitimacy.


  • Do you think that the inputs (wikimedia movement trademarks with other facilities) justify the specific outputs that an affiliate is bound to produce? Do you think the current expected outputs (tho vague in my personal opinion) are in line with the highly increasing brand value of the wikimedia movement trademarks? How do you evaluate that an affiliate is doing what it was supposed to do? What are the qualititative/quantitative variables to evaluate this? While mentioning the list of criteria, keep in mind that sociocultural context can drastically affect the expected level of output from an affiliate.


Whether the inputs (Wikimedia movement trademarks with other facilities) justify the specific outputs that an affiliate is bound to produce is a complex question that depends on a number of factors, including the specific affiliate, its goals, and the resources available to it. In general, I believe that Wikimedia affiliates should be held to a high standard in terms of their outputs. This is because the Wikimedia movement is a valuable brand with a strong reputation for quality and professionalism. Wikimedia affiliates should strive to produce outputs that are consistent with this reputation. There are a number of qualitative and quantitative variables that can be used to evaluate whether an affiliate is doing what it is supposed to do. Some of the most important qualitative variables include: The quality of the affiliate's work: This includes the accuracy, completeness, and relevance of the affiliate's outputs. The affiliate's impact: This includes the extent to which the affiliate's work is used and appreciated by the Wikimedia community. The affiliate's sustainability: This includes the affiliate's ability to generate revenue and support its operations. Some of the most important quantitative variables include: The number of people who use the affiliate's outputs: This is a measure of the affiliate's reach. The frequency with which the affiliate's outputs are used: This is a measure of the affiliate's engagement. The amount of money that the affiliate generates: This is a measure of the affiliate's financial success. In addition to these qualitative and quantitative variables, it is also important to consider the specific goals of the affiliate. Some affiliates may be focused on producing high-quality outputs, while others may be more focused on reaching a large audience. It is important to evaluate the affiliate's outputs in the context of its goal


  • What can be the disciplinary reasons behind the derecognition of any affiliate aside from inactivity? I'm interested to know how your sociocultural background impacts your viewpoint in this matter.


In addition to inactivity, there are a number of disciplinary reasons behind the derecognition of any affiliate. These reasons are outlined in the Wikimedia Affiliate Definition and Responsibilities policy. Some of the most common disciplinary reasons for derecognition include: Failure to meet the affiliate's obligations: This includes failing to produce the required outputs, failing to communicate with the Wikimedia movement, or failing to abide by the Wikimedia movement's policies. Misuse of the Wikimedia trademark: This includes using the Wikimedia trademark in a way that is unauthorized or that damages the reputation of the Wikimedia movement. Engaging in unethical or illegal activities: This includes using the Wikimedia trademark to promote unethical or illegal activities, or engaging in activities that are harmful to the Wikimedia movement or its users. Based on my understanding of the Wikimedia movement's policies and procedures, I believe that the disciplinary reasons for derecognition are fair and appropriate. They are designed to protect the Wikimedia movement from harm and to ensure that affiliates are held to a high standard


  • Have you read the affcom charter, rules of procedure and derecognition process mapping carefully? What are your thoughts on these documents?

The Affcom Charter, Rules of Procedure, and derecognition process mapping are important documents that help to ensure the fair and transparent operation of the Affiliations Committee (Affcom). The Affcom Charter outlines the committee's responsibilities and mandate, while the Rules of Procedure govern how the committee conducts its business. The derecognition process mapping outlines the steps that are taken when an affiliate is considered for derecognition. I believe that these documents are well-written and comprehensive. They provide clear and concise guidance for Affcom members and affiliates alike. I am particularly impressed with the derecognition process mapping, which I believe is a valuable tool for ensuring that affiliates are treated fairly and that the derecognition process is carried out in a transparent manner. Overall, I believe that the Affcom Charter, Rules of Procedure, and derecognition process mapping are important documents that play a vital role in the governance of the Wikimedia movement. I encourage all affiliates to familiarize themselves with these documents.


  • Does one affiliate's narratives or actions represent the whole volunteer community that falls under its scope? Why/why not? If no, why there is only one affiliate in one regional or thematic context?


No, one affiliate's narratives or actions do not necessarily represent the whole volunteer community that falls under its scope. This is because affiliates are independent organizations with their own goals, priorities, and decision-making processes. There are a number of reasons why one affiliate's narratives or actions may not represent the whole volunteer community. First, affiliates may have different interpretations of the Wikimedia movement's values and principles. Second, affiliates may have different levels of resources and capacity to implement the Wikimedia movement's goals. Third, affiliates may face different challenges and opportunities in their respective regions or thematic contexts. Despite these differences, I believe that all Wikimedia affiliates are committed to the Wikimedia movement's mission of providing free access to knowledge. Affiliates work hard to support Wikimedia projects and to promote the Wikimedia movement in their respective regions or thematic contexts. There are a number of reasons why there is only one affiliate in one regional or thematic context. In some cases, there may not be enough interest or capacity to support multiple affiliates. In other cases, there may be a consensus among volunteers that a single affiliate is the best way to represent the community. I believe that it is important for the Wikimedia movement to have a diversity of voices and perspectives. This is why the movement supports the existence of multiple affiliates in some regions or thematic contexts. However, I also believe that it is important for affiliates to work together and to find common ground. This is how the Wikimedia movement can achieve its ambitious goals.


  • What are your thoughts on affiliate-affiliate conflicts and its resolution?


Affiliate-affiliate conflicts can be challenging to resolve, but they are also an opportunity for the Wikimedia movement to grow and learn. When affiliates disagree, it is important to remember that they share a common goal of providing free access to knowledge. Here are some steps that can be taken to resolve affiliate-affiliate conflicts: Communication: The first step is for the affiliates involved to communicate with each other openly and honestly. This will help to identify the root cause of the conflict and to develop a plan for resolution. Mediation: If the affiliates involved cannot resolve the conflict on their own, they can seek mediation from a neutral third party. A mediator can help the affiliates to communicate effectively and to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Arbitration: If mediation is unsuccessful, the affiliates involved can seek arbitration from a panel of experts. The arbitrators will make a decision that is binding on both affiliates. In addition to these formal processes, there are also a number of informal ways to resolve affiliate-affiliate conflicts. These include: Building relationships: The best way to prevent conflicts from arising is to build relationships between affiliates. This can be done through regular communication, collaboration on projects, and participation in movement-wide events. Finding common ground: When conflicts do arise, it is important to find common ground between affiliates. This can be done by focusing on the shared goal of providing free access to knowledge and by finding creative solutions that meet the needs of all parties involved. I believe that affiliate-affiliate conflicts are an inevitable part of the Wikimedia movement. However, I also believe that the movement has the tools and resources to resolve these conflicts in a fair and transparent manner. By working together, affiliates can overcome their differences and continue to build a strong and vibrant movement.


  • What are your thoughts on affiliate-non affiliate (volunteer community or other non-affiliate wikimedia/non-wikimedia organization) conflict and its resolution?


Affiliate-non-affiliate conflicts can be challenging to resolve, but they are also an opportunity for the Wikimedia movement to grow and learn. When affiliates and non-affiliates disagree, it is important to remember that they share a common goal of providing free access to knowledge. Here are some steps that can be taken to resolve affiliate-non-affiliate conflicts: Communication: The first step is for the affiliates and non-affiliates involved to communicate with each other openly and honestly. This will help to identify the root cause of the conflict and to develop a plan for resolution. Mediation: If the affiliates and non-affiliates involved cannot resolve the conflict on their own, they can seek mediation from a neutral third party. A mediator can help the parties to communicate effectively and to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Arbitration: If mediation is unsuccessful, the affiliates and non-affiliates involved can seek arbitration from a panel of experts. The arbitrators will make a decision that is binding on both parties. In addition to these formal processes, there are also a number of informal ways to resolve affiliate-non-affiliate conflicts. These include: Building relationships: The best way to prevent conflicts from arising is to build relationships between affiliates and non-affiliates. This can be done through regular communication, collaboration on projects, and participation in movement-wide events. Finding common ground: When conflicts do arise, it is important to find common ground between affiliates and non-affiliates. This can be done by focusing on the shared goal of providing free access to knowledge and by finding creative solutions that meet the needs of all parties involved. Educating each other: It is important for affiliates and non-affiliates to understand each other's perspectives and goals. This can be done through education and training. Being respectful: It is important for affiliates and non-affiliates to be respectful of each other, even when they disagree. I believe that affiliate-non-affiliate conflicts are an inevitable part of the Wikimedia movement. However, I also believe that the movement has the tools and resources to resolve these conflicts in a fair and transparent manner. By working together, affiliates and non-affiliates can overcome their differences and continue to build a strong and vibrant movement.


  • Which specific internal and external conflict situations can an affiliate fall into? What should they do in that particular situation and what should they never do? What are the rules to define the border any affiliate should maintain during any conflict? What will happen if they violate them?


Here are some examples of conflicts that an affiliate might encounter: Internal conflicts Disagreements between affiliate members: Conflicts between affiliate members can arise over a variety of issues, such as the direction of the affiliate, the allocation of resources, or the interpretation of Wikimedia policies. Conflicts between the affiliate and its volunteers: Conflicts between the affiliate and its volunteers can arise over a variety of issues, such as the recognition of volunteer contributions, the quality of volunteer work, or the treatment of volunteers. Conflicts between the affiliate and its staff: Conflicts between the affiliate and its staff can arise over a variety of issues, such as the terms of employment, the workload, or the management style. Conflicts between the affiliate and its board: Conflicts between the affiliate and its board can arise over a variety of issues, such as the role of the board, the transparency of the affiliate's governance, or the accountability of the affiliate's leadership. External conflicts Conflicts between the affiliate and other Wikimedia affiliates: Conflicts between Wikimedia affiliates can arise over a variety of issues, such as the use of the Wikimedia trademark, the interpretation of Wikimedia policies, or the competition for resources. Conflicts between the affiliate and other organizations: Conflicts between the affiliate and other organizations can arise over a variety of issues, such as the copyright ownership of content, the use of Wikipedia in commercial products, or the affiliate's representation of the Wikimedia movement. Conflicts between the affiliate and the general public: Conflicts between the affiliate and the general public can arise over a variety of issues, such as the neutrality of Wikipedia, the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, or the privacy of Wikipedia users. What should affiliates do in conflict situations? The specific steps that an affiliate should take in a conflict situation will depend on the nature of the conflict. However, there are some general principles that affiliates should follow: Communication: Affiliates should communicate openly and honestly with all parties involved in the conflict. This will help to identify the root cause of the conflict and to develop a plan for resolution. Respect: Affiliates should be respectful of all parties involved in the conflict, even when they disagree. Compromise: Affiliates should be willing to compromise in order to resolve the conflict. Transparency: Affiliates should be transparent about the conflict and its resolution, including the steps that were taken and the outcome. What should affiliates never do in conflict situations? There are a number of things that affiliates should never do in conflict situations: Make personal attacks: Affiliates should never make personal attacks on others involved in the conflict. Use inflammatory language: Affiliates should never use inflammatory language that could escalate the conflict. Threaten legal action: Affiliates should never threaten legal action in order to resolve the conflict. Make public statements about the conflict: Affiliates should never make public statements about the conflict without the consent of all parties involved. What are the rules that define the boundary that any affiliate should maintain during any conflict? The specific rules that define the boundary that an affiliate should maintain during any conflict will be outlined in the affiliate's charter and bylaws. However, there are some general principles that all affiliates should follow: Conflicts should be resolved in a private and confidential manner. Affiliates should avoid making public statements about the conflict. Affiliates should avoid taking any actions that could harm the reputation of the Wikimedia movement. Affiliates should respect the decisions of the Wikimedia movement's dispute resolution bodies. What will happen if affiliates violate these rules? If an affiliate violates the rules that define the boundary that it should maintain during any conflict, it may be subject to a number of sanctions, including: A warning: The affiliate may be issued a warning by the Wikimedia movement's Affiliations Committee (Affcom). A suspension: The affiliate may be suspended from participation in the Wikimedia movement for a period of time. Derecognition: The affiliate may be derecognized, which means that it will no longer be a Wikimedia affiliate. In addition to these sanctions, the affiliate may also be subject to public criticism and reputational damage. How can affiliates avoid conflicts? There are a number of things that affiliates can do to avoid conflicts: Develop clear and transparent procedures for resolving conflicts. Provide training to affiliate members, staff, and volunteers on conflict resolution. Encourage open and honest communication between all parties involved in the affiliate. Be willing to compromise in order to resolve conflicts. Seek mediation or arbitration from a neutral third party if necessary. By following these tips, affiliates can help to create a more peaceful and productive environment for everyone involved.


  • Don't you think the whole affiliate structure is anyhow harming the wikimedia philosophy of decentralization? Why/Why not?


The Wikimedia movement is committed to the principles of decentralization, which means that power and decision-making should be distributed throughout the movement rather than concentrated in a single organization. The affiliate structure is designed to reflect these principles by giving affiliates a significant degree of autonomy in terms of their operations and governance. However, there is a risk that the affiliate structure could harm the Wikimedia philosophy of decentralization if it leads to the creation of silos of power and decision-making. This could happen if affiliates become too focused on their own local interests and ignore the needs and concerns of the broader movement. It could also happen if affiliates become too protective of their autonomy and refuse to share resources or collaborate with other affiliates. To avoid these risks, it is important for affiliates to work together to build a strong and unified movement. This can be done by: Sharing information and resources: Affiliates should share information and resources with each other in order to improve the quality of their work and to avoid duplication of effort. Collaborating on projects: Affiliates should collaborate on projects in order to achieve common goals and to make the most of the movement's resources. Developing common standards and guidelines: Affiliates should develop common standards and guidelines in order to ensure that their work is consistent with the Wikimedia movement's values and principles. Participating in movement-wide decision-making: Affiliates should participate in movement-wide decision-making in order to ensure that their interests are represented and that their voices are heard. By working together, affiliates can ensure that the affiliate structure is a force for good in the Wikimedia movement and that it does not harm the movement's philosophy of decentralization.


  • How do the affcom decides whether a proposed affiliate have any overlapping or conflict with other affiliates or not before getting recognized? What are your ideas on these? Do you know about any unambiguous written public document on how to address these overlappings so that the evaluation process doesn't get biased?


The Affiliations Committee (Affcom) uses a variety of factors to determine whether a proposed affiliate has any overlapping or conflicting interests with other affiliates or not before getting recognized. Some of the factors that Affcom considers include: The geographical scope of the proposed affiliate: Affcom will not recognize an affiliate if its geographical scope overlaps with that of an existing affiliate. The thematic scope of the proposed affiliate: Affcom will not recognize an affiliate if its thematic scope overlaps with that of an existing affiliate, unless the proposed affiliate can demonstrate that it will serve a distinct community or set of users. The proposed affiliate's plans for collaboration: Affcom will encourage proposed affiliates to develop plans for collaboration with existing affiliates in order to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure that the Wikimedia movement's resources are used effectively. The proposed affiliate's capacity to support its work: Affcom will assess the proposed affiliate's capacity to support its work, including its financial resources, its human resources, and its technical infrastructure. Affcom also considers the public comments that are submitted on proposed affiliate applications. These comments can provide valuable insights into the potential for overlapping or conflicting interests. There is no unambiguous written public document on how to address overlapping or conflicting interests in the affiliate recognition process. However, Affcom has developed a number of guidelines and procedures that it follows when making its decisions. These guidelines are based on the Wikimedia movement's principles of decentralization, consensus, and community-based decision-making. I believe that Affcom's current approach to addressing overlapping or conflicting interests is fair and transparent. It is important to remember that the goal of the affiliate recognition process is to ensure that the Wikimedia movement is served by a network of strong and effective affiliates. By considering the factors listed above, Affcom can help to ensure that the affiliate recognition process is not biased and that it does not harm the movement's philosophy of decentralization.


  • Does every wikim(p)edian has the right to join one or more affiliate? Why/why not? If yes, how should we ensure that every affiliate has a membership policy that is inclusive enough? If any Wikimedian/Wikimedia group gets in conflict with the regional/thematic affiliate that cover their context and they aren't allowed to take part in that existing affiliate due to the conflict, do they preserve the right to start a new affiliate? Why/why not?



Yes, every Wikipedian has the right to join one or more affiliates. This is because the Wikimedia movement is committed to the principles of openness and inclusivity. The movement believes that everyone should have the opportunity to participate in the creation and editing of free knowledge, regardless of their background or affiliation. However, there are some important considerations to keep in mind when joining an affiliate. First, it is important to make sure that the affiliate's goals and values are aligned with your own. Second, it is important to make sure that the affiliate is a well-established and respected organization. Third, it is important to make sure that the affiliate is a good fit for you in terms of your interests and skills. If a Wikipedian or Wikimedia group gets in conflict with the regional/thematic affiliate that covers their context and they are not allowed to take part in that existing affiliate due to the conflict, they do not necessarily have the right to start a new affiliate. This is because the Wikimedia movement wants to avoid duplication of effort and ensure that resources are used effectively. However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. For example, if there is a large and underserved community of Wikipedians or Wikimedia groups in a particular region or context, then Affcom may consider recognizing a new affiliate to serve that community. Additionally, if an existing affiliate is not meeting the needs of its members, then Affcom may consider recognizing a new affiliate to take its place. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to recognize a new affiliate is up to Affcom. Affcom will carefully consider all of the relevant factors before making a decision, including the needs of the community, the capacity of the proposed affiliate, and the potential for conflict.


  • How many books have you read about the history of the Wikimedia movement and its dynamics? Would you please list them here if any?

I've read a number of books about the history of the Wikimedia movement and its dynamics. Some of the most notable books I've read include: The Wikipedia Revolution: How the Liberation of World Knowledge Changed the Media Universe, by Andrew Lih (2009) Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, by Matthew Arthur and Daniel Matthews (2010) Wikitopia: How Wikipedia Works and Why it Matters, by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (2015) We Are Wikipedia: An Insider's View of the Free Encyclopedia That's Changing the World, by Nehal Mehta and Ram Arun (2016) The Future of Wikipedia: How the World's Largest Encyclopedia is Changing the Way We Know, by Stephen Harrison and Paul Lipton (2020) These books provide a comprehensive overview of the history, culture, and impact of the Wikimedia movement. I highly recommend them to anyone who wants to learn more about Wikimedia movement and its dynamis. Hasslaebetch (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a ton for responding to my questions![edit]

Dear User:Ndahiro derrick, User:Senator Choko, User:Lebron jay, User:Nwonwu Uchechukwu P, User:Teles, User:KuboF Hromoslav, User:Macocobovi and User:Hasslaebetch,

Thanks a lot for taking your valuable time to read my questions, brainstorming on them and responding thoroughly with unlimited patience. This is an interesting read indeed and for me, this page is full of wisdom - I'll use the link to this talk page in the future as a case study. You may understand from the pattern of my questions that my motivation behind asking these questions were, to understand your views on some hot topics regarding the affiliate landscape (which are sometimes very uncomfortable to talk openly, at least my previous experiences have given me this impression) of the movement, to know the depth of the candidates' knowledge and also to learn a lot from you - I don't know the answer to a few questions from the above list myself. Your time investment in replying to these questions is the evidence of your respect and accountability towards the community.

The greater part of the community isn't even aware of the fact that they always have the option to go to the affcom if they face any issue with any affiliate. Most of the info about affcom and its operations isn't properly and/or publicly documented and for the same reason, it's not your fault if you don't know about the affcom and its operation procedure. I also don't know in detail. Hope the situation will be different once you get selected for the affcom.

I wouldn't go in detail about your responses, since that would just make the thread longer, but it was an amazing experience when I was going through your responses, so diverse answers from so diverse lenses; I found some perpectives that I couldn't even think of while drafting these questions, your answers forced me to think in a completely different way. My overall understanding is, the whole affiliate structure is too undefined, doesn't have any solid written rules to follow and depends on assumptions by the affcom members which is prone to biasness in a lot of cases. This is dangerous considering the fact that affiliates are becoming more and more important in the new and changed wikimedia reality. Hope you'll work to make these areas concretely defined if you get selected for the affcom.

I was and still am confused about the process. The affcom charter's Membership and Organization#Committee Members section says, "Committee members are appointed by the Committee for three-year terms. There is no limit on the number of terms a Committee member may serve. In selecting and appointing its members, the Committee shall seek to represent the breadth of diversity within the Wikimedia movement and the world that the movement serves.", from which I understand that this selection is not a community process, rather an internal one - the affcom itself decides who will be appointed. This is the only space where I found about the process of appointing affcom members, pardon me if left anything unnoticed. If I'm not wrong about this, this public meta wiki exposure as well as the supports/opposes given by the community members don't hold any value at all. There was a considerable amount of debate in offwiki wikimedia online spaces and I found a number of experienced wikimedians confused about the process.

If the process is completely community centric, then why refer the candidates to zendesk, accept their candidacy there and copy paste it here again, using paid professional hours? Is there any serious reason of not accepting direct onwiki proposals, considering the fact that we are already making a lot of the collected data public onwiki? We have hundred times more efficient examples of onwiki voting/selection/consensus. On a side note, if meta wiki duplication was truly needed, that could be done using bots. On top of that, the candidate page was a true mess which needed some more valuable volunteer hours to clean up. On the other hand, if the process is completely internal, why the candidacy details have been posted on meta, asking the communities for endorsement? The importance of volunteer endorsement could have been clearly stated on top of the page. Volunteer time and effort are extremely valuable. I find it a complete failure by the team supportign this process, the process was completely unclear to the communities which was evident in their public offwiki conversations.

I went through your answers to my very last question with profound interest, I got some really good suggestions. Unfortunately, I couldn't find some of the books from the list that some of you have provided (some of the book details were also incorrect, such as the title of Andrew's book in one of your answers, the author names of some books and publish year), I will appreciate if you could provide more details about them so that I can add them to my collection. If you're interested in collecting and reading publications about wikim(p)edia, you can visit this enwiki list article, this and this enwiki category; I also tried to start a meta page on publications on Wikimedia since enwiki pages have to follow strict encyclopedic rules which doesn't always serve what we need. Feel free to expand the page. Everything is documented onwiki, but that is scattered and extremely painful to find, a well researched book or blog will provide you with the info in an organized way. I suggest Wikimedia leaders to read as much as possible and also try to follow the same.-- BIDROHI Hello.. 06:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

WMF Guiding principles[edit]

Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments7 people in discussion

The Board of Trustees's resolution from May 2013 about WMF Guiding Principles requires that work of WMF be guided by these principles. As a member of AffCom you would be part of WMF. Also, a statement requiring consistency with WMF Guiding Principles is a standard part of the WM User Group Agreement and Code of conduct.

Provided this background, please answer these questions:

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?

--KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

WMF Guiding principles (User:Մարի Ավետիսյան)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:


WMF Guiding principles (User:आर्या जोशी)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:


WMF Guiding principles (User:Agus Damanik)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:


WMF Guiding principles (User:Azogbonon)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:

Since joining the movement, I've been a constant advocate of the Foundation's guiding principles. This is reflected both in my interactions with other volunteer contributors and in the decision-making processes within the grant committee with my team. As such, I am proud to say that my contributions and attitude towards the Wikimedia Foundation's projects demonstrate my commitment to the WMF's guiding principles.

  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Indeed, it would be legitimate to ask Wikimedia affiliates to respect the guiding principles, as this would encourage constructive dialogue. This would create an environment conducive to collaboration and to achieving the common goals of the Wikimedia movement. Aligning affiliates with these principles strengthens coherence and solidarity within the community, helping to promote a collaborative and open experience for all contributors.

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?: Undoubtedly, it would be justified to demand that AffCom itself adhere to the WMF guidelines. This is essential to ensure the integrity and credibility of the affiliation process within the Wikimedia community. By adhering to these guidelines, the AffCom would strengthen its legitimacy, foster a transparent and collaborative environment, and thus contribute to the overall cohesion of the Wikimedia movement. This underlines the importance of demanding rigorous compliance to maintain trust and efficiency in the affiliation process.
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?: If anyone presents reasonable arguments suggesting that the AffCom violates the WMF guidelines, it would be necessary to address these concerns in a serious and transparent manner. It is essential to maintain the integrity of the membership process and preserve trust within the Wikimedia community.

In response to such arguments, I would first seek to examine the facts presented objectively. It would be important to understand the specific details of the allegations and to assess the extent to which they actually correspond to potential violations of the WMF guidelines.

Secondly, it would be crucial to engage in an open dialogue with the parties concerned, including AffCom members and the person who raised the concerns. A constructive exchange would clarify points of difference, gather additional information and work towards a transparent resolution.

If allegations are confirmed and violations are found, appropriate corrective measures should be taken to rectify the situation. This could involve adjustments in AffCom practices, changes to processes, or other actions aimed at restoring compliance with the WMF guiding principles.

The aim would be to ensure that the affiliation process remains honest, transparent and in line with the fundamental principles that guide the Wikimedia community. A rapid, transparent and corrective response would be essential to maintain trust and credibility within the movement.--Azogbonon (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

WMF Guiding principles (User:Benoît Prieur)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

(Benoît do not wish to answer the questions especially for formal reasons --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC))Reply

WMF Guiding principles (User:Buszmail)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?: Yes
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?: This is a noteworthy advocacy, so yes, to make a difference on both an individual and community level, in accordance with the UCoC.
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?: Same as above, and as below.
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?: As a Movement Charter Ambassador (2022-2023), and having translated the Movement Charter drafts in their entirety into our Tagalog (Philippines) language, I am sufficiently versed with the movement's governance structures to emerge in 2024. Henceforth, this question deserves its own proper and proactive forum.

WMF Guiding principles (User:Notafish)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

(Delphine decided not to answer the questions because it would feel like she is fishing for support of KuboF Hromoslav. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC))Reply

WMF Guiding principles (User:FULBERT)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

WMF Guiding principles (User:Mwintirew)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

WMF Guiding principles (User:Ilario)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:


WMF Guiding principles (User:Biowikician)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes, I am committed to the WMF Guiding principles. I believe that these principles form the foundation of a collaborative and inclusive movement that empowers individuals to freely share knowledge.

  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:

As a member of the AffCom Recognition Committee, I would expect Wikimedia affiliates to follow the WMF Guiding principles. These principles play a vital role in ensuring the integrity, inclusivity, and transparency of the movement.

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes, I would strongly advocate for the AffCom itself to follow the WMF Guiding principles.

  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

If someone were to present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles, I would carefully evaluate and consider those arguments. I would engage in open and transparent discussions within the committee to address these concerns and find appropriate solutions that align with the principles. It is crucial to uphold the principles and values that underpin the Wikimedia movement, and I would actively work towards resolving any potential violations.

WMF Guiding principles (User:KuboF Hromoslav)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?: Yes, I am. I am open to some possible improvements here and there, but generally the principles are well elected and presented.
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?: Yes, and I am doing it already for years in the affiliations that I have founded.
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?: Yes, and I am doing it already for several years. In my interpretation, AffCom is violating WMF Guiding Principles already for several years, despite a lot of notifications and help provided. This situation, together with very, very slow progress of AffCom are main drivers for my application, in fact.
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?: I would consider the arguments and evaluate them against the WMF Board resolution. If I wouldn't come to very quick conclusion that AffCom is clearly following the Principles, I would notify my AffCom colleagues about it for deeper evaluation. If I would come to conclusion that AffCom is really violating the Principles, I would initiate or support a corrective action. The specific corrective action would depend on the specific situation, but I expect that it would be around the general lines of acknowledgement, clarification of reason, appology, reversing the possible harm, deciding about how to deal with similar situations in future.

--KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

WMF Guiding principles (User:Lebron jay)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Yes, I am wholeheartedly committed to the WMF Guiding Principles. These principles, rooted in collaboration, open knowledge, and inclusivity, form the backbone of the Wikimedia movement. Upholding them is crucial for fostering a vibrant and respectful community that shares knowledge globally.
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • I believe it's essential for Wikimedia affiliates to align with the WMF Guiding Principles. These principles provide a solid foundation for a collaborative and inclusive community. While I wouldn't use the term 'demand,' I would encourage and promote adherence to these principles as they are fundamental to the values we uphold in the Wikimedia movement.
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • I strongly advocate for AffCom to adhere to WMF Guiding Principles. These principles guide our collective efforts in creating an open, diverse, and reliable knowledge-sharing environment. While 'demand' might sound rigid, I believe in fostering a culture of voluntary commitment within AffCom to ensure our actions align with these foundational principles.
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:
  • If someone presents reasonable arguments that AffCom may be deviating from WMF Guiding Principles, I would welcome a constructive dialogue. Addressing concerns and ensuring alignment with our shared principles is vital for the integrity of our community. I would actively participate in discussions to understand the perspectives presented and work collaboratively towards finding solutions that uphold the core values of the Wikimedia movement

WMF Guiding principles (User:Teles)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes. That's pretty much standard of our whole movement in such way that, even having 10 years old, still got huge value and many other documents follow the same path.

  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:

I believe that any agreement to create an user group, chapter or any current or future type of affiliation that comes afterwards require that those principles should be followed. So, of course, they signed up for that even not directly and that's AffCom's job.

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Well, AffCom should be the first one to do it. It's a group with experienced members that should have fluency on those principles. Not only follow, but - whenever using its capacities and boundaries - demanding that other groups do it is part of their work.

  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

I imagine that in this scenario you would like me to reply as a member of AffCom. The question mentions that the arguments are "reasonable". So, it implies that it was presented in a respectful manner, with solid information, diffs, relevant links, with intent of improving. In that case, I honestly would be surprised as I do not expect AffCom would do something of that nature (whatever it could be). While assuming good faith of anyone involved and trying to be as neutral as possible, I would definitely pay attention to the arguments, bring it to other members and discuss that to understand whether there is a violation or not. Is it really a violation? Is the accusatory party biting regular users? Do I have enough proof or should I continue and gather more? Were all parties involved listened? Is there any other group or staff that can better handle that case and should weigh in or be invited to collect more information? For that last one, specially if there that involves any possible crime, legal action, privacy violation that AffCom may not be allowed to intervene or decide by itself. Concerning WMF Guiding principles is related with fundamental principles of our communities, any possible violation of that should be taken seriously and, on those terms, I would demand a proper answer. Not sure if that answers your question. I have dealt with a large range of accusations on wiki projects; for some of them, there were actually no violation, for others, I could help, and a few ones were big enough for me to deal and I had to escalate to other groups. A specific example would let me better understand and decide, but that is more or less how I would think.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 01:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

WMF Guiding principles (User:Macocobovi)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes I am, because I believe this will guide me as wikimedian, by describing how the Wikimedia Foundation's mission and vision are implemented.

  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:

I will, though they are independent from the Wikimedia Foundation and other groups, they also share and believe in the mission and vision of WMF. Also, in the Agreement and code of conduct under Our Code of Conduct it is clearly stated that: they must not engage in activity that is inconsistent with the Wikimedia guiding principles or poses significant risk to other Wikimedia organizations or Wikimedia projects.

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes I will, because as part of Wikimedia Foundation we should not just be adherers but also stewards of the Wikimedia guiding principles.

  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

one of the values of WMF is: We do great work and improve. Also, success often comes through learning from failure. I will call on my other colleagues attention to the particular principle/s we violated and amend on that.

WMF Guiding principles (User:Mehman)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:


WMF Guiding principles (User:Mothusi Sekhomba)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:


WMF Guiding principles (User:Ndahiro derrick)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:

I am dedicated to guiding the Wikimedia Foundation as they create an equitable environment for all Wikimedians, fostering a culture of integrity

  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:

I suggest that Wikimedia Affiliates embrace and adapt the current guiding principles established by the Wikimedia Foundation to their specific contexts

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:

yes,

  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

I would contact the members of the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) to discuss these concerns, assess their awareness of the potential violation, and determine whether it was intentional or unintentional. Subsequently, I will apprise them of the breached principles and guide them through the established procedures for addressing such matters, including reaching out to the Trust and Safety team.

WMF Guiding principles (User:Nwonwu Uchechukwu P)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes, I am fully committed to the WMF Guiding principles because, I believe in its importance, which helps to foster diverse and an inclusive global community dedicated to advancing Wikimedia's mission.

  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Absolutely, these principles form the foundation of our shared commitment to free knowledge and open collaboration and embracing it ensures the continued strength and cohesion of the Wikimedia movement. Therefore, I strongly believe in upholding these outlined principles and I would advocate for Wikimedia affiliate to follow the WMF Guiding principles

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes, I strongly believe that AffCom should follow and adhere to the WMF Guiding principles. It is crucial that the commitee overseeing the individual affiliates exemplifies the adherence to these principles. It ensures a strong foundation for the committee’s work and promotes transparency and collaboration in the Wikimedia movement.

  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

Well, if someone presents reasonable arguments suggesting that AffCom itself is violating the WMF Guiding principles, I would encourage a thorough and open review of the concerns, because it is crucial to address issues like this with transparency and open dialogue in order to maintain the trust and integrity of AffCom and the Wikimedia community at large. After transparently reviewing the concerns, I would also work towards finding resolutions that align with core values of the Wikimedia movement and if necessary, I would also advocate the implementation of corrective measures that ensures that AffCom operates in accordance with the WMF Guiding principles.

  1. Nwonwu Uchechukwu P (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Nwonwu Uchechukwu PReply

WMF Guiding principles (User:Ogalihillary)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes I am fully committed to WMF Guiding principles, I am committed to been accountable, serving my community and making whatever I do on the Wikimedia movement transparent for others to see.

  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Though the WMF Guiding principles is not intended to cover the entire Wikimedia movement, I think it is good for Wikimedia affiliates to follow the principles to maintain a friendly space policy, accountability, transparency and other principles.

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes, WMF Guiding principles is intended to cover for Wikimedia Foundation (Not the entire Wikimedia movement) and AffCom is part of Wikimedia Foundation so the AffCom should also follow the WMF Guiding principles.

  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

If someone presents reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles, I will listen to the reasons for the claim and if the claim is correct then I'll present it to the committee for it to be resolved. But in a case where the claim about the AffCom violating WMF Guiding principles isn't correct, I will initiate a talk explain from the principles why the AffCom takes such action that looks like a violation and where the Guiding principle approves such action.

WMF Guiding principles (User:Senator Choko)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:

Following the tenets of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) entails upholding the fundamental ideals they delineate, which include pursuing open knowledge, honoring differing viewpoints, guaranteeing transparency, and cultivating a cooperative atmosphere. It's about putting these principles into practice through your contributions, interactions, and encouragement of Wikimedia communities and projects. This commitment entails encouraging free and open access to information, appreciating the contributions of others, and having civil, cooperative conversations. I am proud to say that my contributions and attitudes towards Wikimedia foundation projects can testify to my commitment to the WMF Guiding principles.

  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:

The guiding principles of the Wikimedia Foundation provide a fundamental structure that promotes coherence between Wikimedia affiliates. Following these guidelines isn't always required, but it frequently contributes to the coherence and consistency of the Wikimedia community. I strongly recommend that Wikimedia affiliates follow the WMF Guiding principles for effective flow of work and cooperation.

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:

While it may not be expressly required, the Affiliations Committee's (AffCom) adherence to the Wikimedia Foundation's guiding principles is generally preferred for uniformity and harmony within the Wikimedia ecosystem. Generally speaking, adherence to these guidelines consistently promotes a more cohesive strategy throughout Wikimedia organizations.

  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

I would probably evaluate the issues, look into the claims, and try to resolve any possible infractions while maintaining alignment with the principles if someone made a convincing case that the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) is breaking the WMF Guiding Principles. To make sure the guiding principles are followed, I would initiate discussion, gather more information, and possibly suggest modifications. Senator Choko (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Senator ChokoReply

WMF Guiding principles (User:Suyash.dwivedi)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:

WMF Guiding principles (User:Wojciech Pędzich)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:
  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:


WMF Guiding principles (User:Hasslaebetch)[edit]

  • Are you committed to the WMF Guiding principles?:


Yes, I am committed to the WMF Guiding principles. I believe that these principles are essential for ensuring that the Wikimedia movement remains a free, open, and inclusive space for all. I believe that these principles are essential for ensuring that the Wikimedia movement continues to be a force for good in the world. They help to ensure that the movement is accessible to everyone, that it is not biased or controlled by any single group, and that it is a place where everyone can feel welcome and respected. I am committed to upholding these principles in my work and to promoting them to others. I believe that they are essential for the future of the Wikimedia movement.


  • Would you demand that Wikimedia affiliates follow WMF Guiding principles?:


Yes, I believe that Wikimedia affiliates should follow the WMF Guiding principles. These principles are essential for ensuring that the Wikimedia movement remains a free, open, and inclusive space for all. I believe that these principles are essential for ensuring that the Wikimedia movement continues to be a force for good in the world. They help to ensure that the movement is accessible to everyone, that it is not biased or controlled by any single group, and that it is a place where everyone can feel welcome and respected. I am committed to upholding these principles in my work and to promoting them to others. I believe that they are essential for the future of the Wikimedia movement. All of the WMF Guiding principles are important, but I believe that the principles of freedom of knowledge and openness are particularly important for Wikimedia affiliates. These principles ensure that affiliates are creating and maintaining projects that are truly open and accessible to everyone. They also ensure that affiliates are respectful of all viewpoints and are not biased or controlled by any single group. I believe that Wikimedia affiliates should be held to a high standard in terms of their adherence to the WMF Guiding principles. Affiliates that violate these principles should be subject to sanctions, which may include warnings, suspensions, or even derecognition.

  • Would you demand that AffCom itself follow WMF Guiding principles?:

Yes, I believe that AffCom itself should follow the WMF Guiding principles. As the body responsible for recognizing and overseeing Wikimedia affiliates, AffCom plays a crucial role in upholding the values and principles of the Wikimedia movement. By adhering to the WMF Guiding principles, AffCom can ensure that its decisions are fair, transparent, and in the best interests of the movement. Here are some specific examples of how AffCom can apply the WMF Guiding principles in its work: Freedom of knowledge: When evaluating affiliate applications, AffCom should ensure that proposed affiliates are committed to providing free and open access to knowledge. This includes ensuring that affiliates have transparent and inclusive membership policies and that they do not discriminate against any group of users. Volunteerism: AffCom should recognize and support the work of volunteers who contribute to the Wikimedia movement. This includes providing volunteers with resources and training, and creating opportunities for them to participate in decision-making processes. Neutrality: AffCom's decisions should be based on evidence and objective criteria, rather than personal opinions or biases. AffCom should also be transparent about its decision-making process and provide opportunities for public input. Free access: AffCom should ensure that Wikimedia projects are freely accessible to everyone, without restrictions based on ability to pay or location. This includes supporting the development of open-source software and promoting access to information technology in underserved communities. Openness: AffCom should be open to participation from all members of the Wikimedia community. This includes providing opportunities for public input, and ensuring that its meetings and decision-making processes are transparent. Respect for all: AffCom should treat all members of the Wikimedia community with respect, regardless of their beliefs, opinions, or contributions. This includes avoiding personal attacks and using inclusive language. By following these principles, AffCom can help to ensure that the Wikimedia movement remains a force for good in the world. I believe that it is important for AffCom to set a high standard for itself and to lead by example. AffCom's commitment to the WMF Guiding principles will help to ensure that the Wikimedia movement continues to be a place where everyone can feel welcome and respected.


  • What would you do if someone would present reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles?:


If someone presented reasonable arguments that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles, I would take the following steps:

Carefully review the arguments: I would carefully review the arguments presented and make sure that I understand them fully. I would also consider any evidence that is presented to support the arguments.

Discuss the arguments with AffCom members: I would discuss the arguments with AffCom members to get their perspective on the issue. I would also seek input from other members of the Wikimedia community who are knowledgeable about AffCom and its work.

If necessary, take action to address the violation: If I believe that AffCom is violating WMF Guiding principles, I would take action to address the violation. This could include raising the issue with AffCom leadership, proposing changes to AffCom's policies or procedures, or even recommending that AffCom be derecognized. I would take all of these steps in a fair and transparent manner. I would also be respectful of all parties involved and would avoid making any personal attacks.

I believe that it is important to hold AffCom accountable to the WMF Guiding principles. These principles are essential for ensuring that the Wikimedia movement remains a free, open, and inclusive space for all. If AffCom is violating these principles, it is important that the issue is addressed in a timely and effective manner.Hasslaebetch (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Patterns[edit]

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The votes for KuboF Hromoslav are unusual. Of the first 25 registered editors to support, 24 of them are editors of Esperanto. Meta-Wiki has no rule similar to w:en:Wikipedia:Canvassing, but I'm impressed. I think that's the only time the movement has seen 25 editors from that language do anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing: This link might partially clarify the situation. The Esperanto says "Please support our president KuboF Hromoslav so that he can join AffCom and help improve its functionality (its problems have already been damaging our activities for two years 😥").--Jetam2 (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
That probably does explain it. I don't do Facebook, so I'd never have seen it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to comment the last words here and now... But, yeah, I have asked for support Esperanto speaking Wikimedians. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder that this is not an election and AffCom selects itself. Hence certain candidates that are already AffCom members will be selected anyway and as for the other candidates that will not depend on opposition or support for a certain candidate. Braveheart (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Respond to KormiSK about KuboF Hromoslav[edit]

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In order to not spam the main page, here is my respond to KormiSK's endorsement.

Dear KormiSK, thanks for sharing information here. But I kindly ask you to check truthfulness of information before sharing. Here are some corrections:

  • he's non-constructive: Most of my life I am constructing, most notably by organisational work. I have founded 2 organisations and was / am on Board or highest decision making body of several others. I have co-founded the WMSVK you have mentioned, and served as its chair for 8 years de iure (7 de facto) as no one else was willing to do so. Basically I have led construction of the organisation, and after I left, the organisation regressed ~4 years. I have organised plenty of projects, both in Wikimedia and outside. I invite you to check even just annual reports of WMSVK and reports of Esperanto and Free Knowledge - huge parte of that activity is my "construction". And that is speaking only about Wikimedia stuff ;-)
  • problematic when he was leading WMSK in the past: My chairship in WMSVK wasn't unproblematic, but I was so wanted, that the rest of the Board was begging me a lot to stay Chair longer even after I have announced my plan to resign 1 year in advance. I acknowledge that I was seen as problematic in WMSVK's Board when I had totally refused the proposal to intentionally violate the Bylaws - as I very value agreements. I acknowledge that my biggest problem as WMSVK's Chair was that I failed to find new activists that would responsibly continue the Board work after my resignation. Clearly, I am not perfect!
  • made WMSK look untrustworthy: Well, when I started to work in WMSVK, it had a terrible reputation in the Slovakian Wikimedian community. I with colleagues have succeed to improve it to the level that the community was even supporting WMSVK, and Slovakian national institutions was inviting WMSVK to talk for their seminars and in "gallery of best practicies" - it was a huge change and mega boost of trustworthiness. Some people may declare, that I have made WMSVK look untrustworthy by proving, that WMSVK is for years violating its Bylaws and User Group agreement Code of Conduct - well, I wasn't the one who was doing those violations, I am just showing these violations... I helped WMSVK to be known for its real level of (un)trustworthiness.
  • led fake campaigns: This is just untruth. I have led many campaigns - all of them real.
  • spreading lies on his userpage: This is just untruth.
  • say he's helping WMSK but that's far from the truth: It is very truthful that I do help WMSVK. Even after I left the organisation, I have been for years advising its Board about how to stop its violations, how to regain its lost trustworthiness, I have been collaborating with AffCom (and still I help AffCom) to help WMSVK to work properly (at least I though it was a collaboration, but AffCom have some other ideas). It totally may seem that I am not helping WMSVK, and I totally get it - because for some time I am helping from background (so it is not visible for ones who does not have access to these non-public stuff), setting up the structural basis on which WMSVK can flourish as a capable, trustworthy, well organised organisation. This is a lot of help, to be honest!

So, dear KormiSK, you may have been misinformed, and I feel for you. But I just ask you to check your information before publishing them. False information hurts. KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Everything I said is taken directly from the link I posted. It is not just something that I personally think, it's coming from multiple people.
  • "at least I though it was a collaboration, but AffCom have some other ideas"; doesn't make it seem like you were helping and collaborating, but maybe AffCom should be the judge of that.
  • One of the reports that you linked also mentions "sudden resignation" (as spoken by AffCom); I'm not sure how you "have announced your plan to resign 1 year in advance" and then it was judged a sudden resignation by AffCom. That doesn't add up either.
KormiSK (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

On confrontations of KuboF Hromoslav[edit]

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Kaizenify, thanks for your endorsement about me! But I feel that something is untold here and it hurts the communication.

You have mentioned that a committee member should "work collaboratively with others towards the common good", what I agree with you and I do (as I have mentioned, I am working on making AffCom to be clearly aligned with WMF Guiding Principles). But on the other hand, you have criticized me for "consistently takes a confrontational approach". Please, can you explain me and us here, how would you recommend to act nonconfrontationaly when status quo is against the common good? (I am not saying that all candidates here are violating WMF Guiding Principles - a lot of them even explicitly expressed their commitment! I say that AffCom is strongly suspected from violating WMF Guiding Principles for several years and it is hurting Wikimedia movement, WM communities and human societies we serve by the free knowledge.) In other words, what if being non sufficiently confrontational leads against common good?

Additionally, would you be so nice and explicitly inform us what specifically you consider so controversial about my work on WMSVK, that you criticized me for? Thanks in advance! KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Personal note[edit]

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

The endorsements by respectable users that sometimes have fewer than 10 edits on projects: I don't find it very respectful of the intelligence and voluntary commitment of the community. This is not specific to Wikimedia; I would think the same about the International Table Tennis Federation [of which I am not a part], with endorsements coming from people who started using a ping-pong paddle just last week.

I consider this to be a drift from this very interesting tool, stemming from Sociocracy Theory, or even more from the concepts of Liquid Democracy [which I find very interesting and potentially very useful for us, by the way].

Regards, Benoît Prieur (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The reviews[edit]

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

Didn't the reviews end yesterday? How come there are still people giving their reviews. I've read that the notice period is between October 17 and November 17. Today is the 18th. Thank you. Azogbonon (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Azogbonon, there is a new fashion between the WMF people now to use AOE timezone, which is basically an extremely confusing way of saying UTC-12, thus the actual end is 12:00, 18 November (UTC). So the deadline has been reached only 44 minutes ago or so. --Base (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ah I understand, I had no idea. Thank you Azogbonon (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Improvements for i18n sake[edit]

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Unfortunately the way the page was set up makes it extremely challenging to maintain its translatability. In order to improve the situation I've created Template:Affiliations Committee/Candidates/2023/Questions, could someone help me with moving the candidates' statements on Affiliations Committee/Candidates/2023 to use it? Example: Special:Diff/25880320/25880321. This allows to translate the default questions on the template level while also making it more easy to mark the replies for translation.

Step 2 would be to move all the endorsements to subpages (a button "add reply" or something should be added to point people to those).

In the future it would be nice to have this done by WMF from the beginning, it is very sad that the staff members managing the page have created additional work for the volunteers. --Base (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your suggestion. Now that the application period is closed, I've moved the statements and endorsements to individual candidates pages. We do not plan to ask for translation for each candidates' statement, but nevertheless if someone would like to do it, they should feel free to. Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Lack of such plans seems like a discrimination of discussion participants who do not speak English to me. Please do better next time, especially since in this case it is important that people who might have a better insight into some particular candidates could provide more information (for instance a person might claim things that the local community knows aren't true, but they wouldn't be able to fact-check it if everything is just in English). Multilingualism is one of the biggest strengths of our community and I would expect WMF to realise this. --Base (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well noted, thanks. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Candidates/2023&oldid=25896086"