Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-09-06/News and notes

Q: Is it even possible to hold older chapters/thorgs to the higher standards? I was under the impression that the previous processes did not allow for any mechanism to hold chapters accountable, nevermind decomissioning them.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The only requirement for chapters is to make a brief annual report to the WMF. The report only needs to be about three sentences long and can be seen at meta:Reports. Other than that, since expectations are not higher, accountability is not higher. I would like to see higher accountability requirements. The ones proposed above are fine, but I regret that there are no plans to apply these rules to existing chapters. I wish that they could apply to all chapters, and not just new chapters, and I wish that these rules could be in place in time to de-commission inactive chapters before the meta:Affiliate-selected Board seats in 2019. That vote is the one power that goes to all chapters, even those chapters operated by single users who almost never log in to Wikimedia projects.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that you mixed the admins up. Oshwah's the software engineer, not Vanmonde. I've fixed it, but if I shouldn't have edited it, you can revert. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unlike user groups, chapters and thorgs are eligible for annual operating grants"—Someone has commented to me that the first phrase is incorrect. I'm trying to locate information on Meta about the differences in funding opportunities for user groups vs chapters/thorgs, but it's surprisingly difficult (and I think FDC grant eligibility changed in the recent restructuring). What led me down the possibly wrong path was the appearance of "chapter" and "chapter agreement" at the top of the 2016–17 eligibility checklist. Tony   (talk)  22:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)