Talk:North American Wikimedians/Hub founding

Main

Talk

Agreement draft text

Background materials

What we expect afterward

Would your group sign on? How should the agreement text be revised?

• Wikimedia DC will sign on. Please do edit the content or phrasing of the agreement; let's get it right and get 10 groups to sign. -- econterms (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Philadelphia WikiSalon supports the initiative for a North American Hub. -- Dorevabelfiore (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Wikimedia NYC has support of the concept, and we will bring this proposed agreement to our board.--Pharos (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• On behalf of the Wikimedians of Los Angeles User Group, we are glad to lend our full support to this initiative. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• The North Carolina Wikipedians User Group supports the North American Hub. -- Sodapopinski7 (talk) 20:11:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarify supportive purpose

Change:

We will host events, activities, or services open to North American Wikimedians regularly and we can say such events are held on behalf of in concert with of the North American hub

to read

We will host events, activities, or services open to North American Wikimedians, and support one another's events.

• +1 as proposer. –SJ talk  21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• • Adopted with tweaks; see my general reply below.

Reduce exclusivity

The hub should support all initiatives to improve Wikimedia across the region. We cannot become a secondary layer of approval for affiliate status. Voting should be kept to a minimum, and replaced by structural defaults where possible, or by simple RfCs as already understood on Meta.

Change:

By majority vote of existing member groups, new groups can join the hub. A group can leave whenever it decides to.

to read

Any Wikimedia affiliates based in North America can join the hub by signing on to this agreement. A group can leave whenever it decides to.

• • Adopted, with minimal rephrasing. -- econterms (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Change:

By majority vote of existing member groups, project may be approved or declined as "North American Wikimedians" (hub)

to read

Any project or event by members of the hub can be announced on our projects page.

Add:

Other groups (including partner orgs that are not affiliates) may be proposed for inclusion in the Hub, or for removal from the Hub, by an RfC on the talk page.

• +1 as proposer. –SJ talk  21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

SJ:

I'll happily fold some of this in. I agree with minimizing voting, and thought I had. And I certainly agree that this hub mustn't "become a secondary layer of approval for affiliate status." -- nobody wants that, to my knowledge.

However, regarding the first change, I don't want to accept the suggested rephrasing exactly. I didn't want to use that proposed criterion "based in North America", and preferred "offering services to North Americans". E.g. LGBT+ or Francophone or Wiksource user groups might be based elsewhere, but active enough in North America to join.

Updated the last suggestion, so it can include groups that are not specific to N.America. Those shouldn't be automatically included, but groups within the region should be -- that's what it says on the tin. –SJ talk  00:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I felt it was important to say not only that a group wants to join the hub, and signs on to this agreement, but that the others accept and welcome it. There is some idea out there called collecting hats? collecting roles or powers or items for the vita? or joining everything? and I think we don't want to give membershp/credit/votes to inactive or irrelevant members even if they would sign. I'll reflect further. -- econterms (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think hubs should be social clubs. They should by default support all efforts in their region or focus, especially those without other support networks. There's nothing to 'collect' -- every org should be part of a hub if they want to be. (possibly not more than one, in which case you choose which you join; that's a norm we should set across all the hubs. But none excluded simply for lack of popularity.) –SJ talk  00:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Econterms: would love some iteration and broader discussion before Wikimania :) –SJ talk  22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sj: I'm slow! But I halfway adopted these improvements. Thank you for thinking it through. I feel that some backstop of formal decisionmaking is necessary in cases of true disagreement or bad faith. But this is not central, so I scooted that bit down into a subsection and made plain that voting would not be a regularly scheduled recurring matter; possibly it's needed only for exceptional cases. I'm not sure you will find it to be better. It's longer. But by separating section that away we can use your simpler friendlier general and direct phrasings in the top section. -- econterms (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)