Jump to content

Talk:Wikimedia movement affiliates/Protocol for noncompliant Wikimedia movement affiliates

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Nemo bis in topic Suggestion


Coming from a discussion on wikimedia-l I reread the text and I realized that it could lead to misinterpretations. Maybe a bit restructure would help to make it clearer. The text has several sections:

  1. introduction
  2. what is meant with compliance
  3. types of compliance issues (minor/reparable and serious)
  4. process for serious and urgent cases
  5. process for less serious cases

I suggest to switch the order of 4 and 5 and to use subtitles to structure (should be better than mine). The text is not long, but it is not easy to see that there are different processes. And the order of them gives the impression that the most radical process is what we expect to happen most likely. Alice Wiegand (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. The title seems to be wrong too. This protocol seems to be about emergencies where an affiliate is actively going havoc, rather than just being inactive or ineffective (which is what happens and concerns people 97 % of the time). So I'd suggest the word "emergency" or similar to be added somewhere in the title. Nemo 17:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's still not clear to me whether this protocol is a general one or just an emergency method. I assume the recent derecognitions were not decided unilaterally by the WMF staff with just 72 hours notice, for instance. See also Talk:Wikimedia movement affiliates/Affiliate derecognition FAQ#Basepage. --Nemo 21:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

De-Recognition Process Steps[edit]

See Affiliate De-Recognition Process Mapping

Decision-making records[edit]

For the sake of the archives and of transparency, the de-recognition of a chapter should be a resolution recorded somewhere on the wiki. It's quite surprising and unsatisfactory to see that Affiliations Committee/Resolutions and wmf:Resolutions are full of routine records, but don't have anything to say about such important decisions. It would be good to record any background, supporting documents, dates and decision-makers in actual resolutions, but at a minimum the announcements should be on some appropriate wiki page (probably listed from the resolutions) rather than just mailing list messages linked from Wikimedia_chapters#Former chapters. --Nemo 21:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply