Updates on Meta

[Samuel Klein]

Dear list,

A reminder: we have a meeting scheduled for this Sunday at 1730 UTC.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Meeting:_Sunday.2C_12_February.2C_1730_UTC

Some topics related to movement roles were raised at last weekend's
Board meeting. These are summarized on the same page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Issues_raised_at_the_February_Board_meeting

Standards for accountability and standards for Wikimedia committees
are being drafted on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Audit_committee/Draft_Accountability_standards

Two resolutions related to new models will be drafted in a similar
fashion over the coming month, with input from the current ChapCom.
(ChapCom is being asked to expand its scope to include new models, and
to expressly help mentor existing groups.) I will post a link to the
draft once it is up.


Looking forward to seeing many of you on Sunday,
SJ

[Theo10011]

Sj, I saw this after Bence's email.

This is the first time I'm hearing about expanding ChapCom role. It's
already a drafted resolution?

If it is going to be taken as an MR recommendation, I would have thought we
would have agreement internally first, I even thought we would circulate
them to the community before board makes a resolution on any of these?

I'm really surprised to have read about this in Stu's blog as if it was a
locked recommendation by MR group, only a couple of hours after it was
brought up here.

Regards
Theo

Post by Samuel Klein
Dear list,
A reminder: we have a meeting scheduled for this Sunday at 1730 UTC.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Meeting:_Sunday.2C_12_February.2C_1730_UTC
Some topics related to movement roles were raised at last weekend's
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles#Issues_raised_at_the_February_Board_meeting
Standards for accountability and standards for Wikimedia committees
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Audit_committee/Draft_Accountability_standards
Two resolutions related to new models will be drafted in a similar
fashion over the coming month, with input from the current ChapCom.
(ChapCom is being asked to expand its scope to include new models, and
to expressly help mentor existing groups.) I will post a link to the
draft once it is up.
Looking forward to seeing many of you on Sunday,
SJ
--
skype:metasj [phone]
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Samuel Klein]

Hi Theo,

Post by Theo10011
If it is going to be taken as an MR recommendation, I would have thought we
would have agreement internally first

This wasn't taken as a final recommendation by MR, though the Board
was focused on the topic thanks to the public work that this group has
done. We are circulating this among this group over the weekend, and
to the community afterwards for a month, for public editing and
discussion.

Post by Theo10011
I'm really surprised to have read about this in Stu's blog as if it was a
locked recommendation by MR group, only a couple of hours after it was

It's not locked, hence the public review. The Board is committed to
recognizing new models and simplifying the path to recognition and
joining the movement -- but recognizes that the details may need
refinement.

SJ

[Theo10011]

Hiya Sj

A couple of points.

We did agree on recognizing new models and entities, the last I remember
the suggestion was still creation of an AssCom or similar body. The first I
heard of extending ChapCom scope is from Sue's blog, mentioning the
recommendation of MR group. Even ChapCom confirmed they heard about this
yesterday, considering there are a few people from ChapCom and the board in
the group, this was news to me.

Since, both you and Stu are on the board, this conflates the situation a
bit. I think we have an idea about where the group is and how far our
recommendations have gone, but Stu and other board/staff members, and
others have been generously using MR group in their discussions. Bence hit
the point on the head in his reply on Internal.

Regards
Theo

Post by Samuel Klein
Hi Theo,

Post by Theo10011
If it is going to be taken as an MR recommendation, I would have thought

we

Post by Theo10011
would have agreement internally first

This wasn't taken as a final recommendation by MR, though the Board
was focused on the topic thanks to the public work that this group has
done. We are circulating this among this group over the weekend, and
to the community afterwards for a month, for public editing and
discussion.

Post by Theo10011
I'm really surprised to have read about this in Stu's blog as if it was a
locked recommendation by MR group, only a couple of hours after it was

It's not locked, hence the public review. The Board is committed to
recognizing new models and simplifying the path to recognition and
joining the movement -- but recognizes that the details may need
refinement.
SJ

[Samuel Klein]

Hi Theo,

We did agree on recognizing new models and entities, the last I remember the
suggestion was still creation of an AssCom or similar body. The first I
heard of extending ChapCom scope is from Sue's blog, mentioning the
recommendation of MR group. Even ChapCom confirmed they heard about this
yesterday, considering there are a few people from ChapCom and the board in
the group, this was news to me.

A separate AffCom was discussed first. The MR discussions on Meta
covered various ways to realize the idea of such a committee -- from
a separate AffCom that works with ChapCom, to a merged group that
addressed all affiliations.

The Board was primarily concerned about committee overload (something
we discussed in this group as well) - having too many people on
different bodies. And so suggested a change to ChapCom to a new body
that might draw energy away from it.

Bence hit the point on the head in his reply on Internal.

Yes. we should clarify our own conclusions in the discussion on Meta,
and note the places where our working group had other ideas or did not
reach consensus.

SJ