Jump to content

Talk:Amical Wikimedia/en/Survey

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


  • How dare you say "We have reduced the territory so that it is entirely within a single state: Spain." if you want a "subnational" chapter only "for Catalonia, Balearic islands and Valencia", this is 3 of the 17 "comunidades autónomas" of Spain?
  • Why do you expressly omit any reference to the ongoing Wikimedia Spain proposed chapter, even if almost all members of Amical know [everything] about it?
  • If there is a clear procedure for the proposed chapters, written by the ChapCom members, what is the purpose of this survey and why don't you follow the ChapCom instructions?

Thanks, --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your interest in our survey, as you already know we have discussed this issue with ChapCom; this survey is only a way to smooth the path and fulfill the demands they gave to us.Barcelona 13:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
But could you answer these questions, please? --Millars 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Our friend Barcelona already answered you exactly about what we're doing. This page is about talking of our WM-CAT proposal, not about another proposal. --Joanot 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
But you have not answered any of the questions. I think each one deserves an explanation. Thanks, --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 17:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Barcelona answered the third and last point. This is exactly what we're doing. The other two points do not deserve any explanation to the promoters from another proposals. Anyway, the WM-ES proposal page is also omitting any reference to other Chapters proposals like those of ours. So I don't see the point you're complaining about. Indeed, thanks for your interest. --Joanot 18:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
So, I understand that you cannot explain yourself with your own reasons, so these questions will remain unanswered. You say that what we ask doesn't deserve any answer because they come from other Chapter's members, but it is your group which is making a spamming campaign (not the first one, indeed) in order to get as much spurious signatures as you can, as if a massive only-one-click action can make the ChapCom, or the Board, change their reasons. Does your responsibility finish here, promoting an unilateral survey and not answering to the critics? Regards, --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
No personal attacks, please :) --Joanot 19:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC) PD: Of course we ask for support to individuals and collectives. If they consider so, they sign it. Are you considering it spurious signatures? I'm so sorry if it's annoying you, Lucien, but it's absolutely fair and democratic.Reply

A refusal to answer may be regarded as an answer in itself. An attempt to purposefully misdirect users regarding conflicts with overlapping proposals and the use of an aggressive canvassing campaign could suggest a preference of underhanded ways in order to try to obtain approval by any means necessary. Or again, you could answer the questions and dispell any such notions. Have a nice day. Raystorm 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if it seemed I didn't want to answer, dialogue and transparency is exactly what we have been asking for the whole process, so don't imagine any hidden intentions or refusal to talk, I personally apologize if it wasn't clear.
So, to close this debate, I already answered the last question and the first two are also simple: we have talked about the territory in the same terms as others like Wikimedia-Ny do, not pretending to cover all Spain but stating those areas are in a single state as the ChapCom requested to us. As for the possible future chapter wikimedia-es, we will be happy to collaborate with you during the process and of course after, as I'm sure you will do. Thanks again for your interest.Barcelona 10:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for replying, no need to apologize to me. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning though. If this proposal will not cover one state (Spain), but only hand-picked portions of it, why can't it be integrated in the proposal that covers all of Spain, wmes, and work from there? Having two overlapping proposals and expecting both to succeed seems wishful. And the one that will cover the entire territory should carry more weight, I believe. I don't think the comparison with wmnyc is accurate: they don't propose to work in Manhattan but avoid the 5th Avenue, for example. They work in the entire state. Cheers Raystorm 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I differs from Raystorm's opinion: the the comparison with NY is perfectly valid, the proposal does not divide any city. I'm not sure what definition of state is refered. --Mafoso 08:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was not so much stating an opinion as requesting clarification of what has been proposed. In vain, it seems. Raystorm 16:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not the best place for discussion...[edit]

I have said this elsewhere, and repeat it here: if you want to make proposals directly related to being or becoming a Chapter, you should bring those up with the Chapters committee rather than directing them to the Board (though soliciting public input and support of a proposasl is always welcome on the projects).

In the case of WM-CAT and Amical, I think that the organization would be better suited to a borderless Partner Organization; further discussion here. SJ · talk | translate 11:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply