Talk:Affiliations Committee/Recommendations November 2025

Affiliations Committee welcomes your feedback on the draft proposals!

This is the discussion and feedback space for the draft recommendations and documentation from the Affiliations Committee on strategic areas of affiliate model, capacity development, and conflict management. The committee and their supporting staff will be monitoring this space to interact with the comments and integrate them in the next iteration of the draft. Thank you for your contributions! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

General Comments and Questions

This is the space for general comments and questions related to the Affiliations Committee draft recommendations from November 2025. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments related to Affiliate Model proposal

This is the space for feedback to Affiliate Model draft proposal of the Affiliations Committee from November 2025.

The Affiliations Committee has prepared a list of questions to be answered in this conversation:

• In your perspective, what is the most effective and clear high level definition for Wikimedia affiliates?
  • Should the distinction be geographic and thematic? Geographic and non-geographic? Something else?
  • How do language based groups and affiliates fit into this picture?
• In your perspective, what would be the most functional future set up for the hubs?
  • Should they be organized entities or informal coordination structures?
  • Should hubs be membership organizations? If yes, then should they be constituted by affiliates or community representatives or individual members?
• In your perspective, what affiliate categories are needed in the movement for most clarity and impact?
  • Could thematic organizations be folded into the chapter category to include non-geographic or thematic chapters?
  • What is the ideal organizational growth path for non-geographic or thematic organizations? Should there be a specific layer for organized entities or should they rather evolve into hubs?
  • Should there be a category for partner organizations (which has formally existed, but never used in our current setting)?
• In your perspective, what are the meaningful criteria for preventing and mitigating overlaps between Wikimedia movement organizations?

--KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Anthere

First, I think there should be a space or a plan for partner organizations. Several such organizations do exist at the moment and I believe the ecosystem would be poorer of their disappearance. The Towards a Healthy Ecosystem of Wikimedia Organizations did a good job to outline this issue. Those partner organizations do not fit in the current affiliation model, nor in the affiliation model you are suggesting. This situation has already been reported as being an issue. Not dealing with the issue will not make it disappear (but it might make those organizations disappear). If the purpose is to "Nurture sense of belonging », this will miss the mark for some actors in the ecosystem.

The new proposition also does not deal with the related question of entities which are not member based. It is pretty interesting that being membership based is an obligation to be an affiliate, whilst the WMF itself does not have members. To avoid being rejected, some current affiliates are « going around » the issue with being membership based with 5-10 fixed members and restricted access. Do we want to continue what is essentially pretense ?

I am worried about the no-overlap factor (though I fully understand why it is proposed). First because historically, the Affcom has been very slow to deal with broken situations where a poorly active (or even inactive) or broken (poor governance for example) chapter or an UG was just « sitting » in a spot, and not allowing another organisation to emerge or grow in the spot. And I do not see anything in the new proposition that would help the AffCom to make tougher and quicker decisions in such circonstances to allow to « move on ». This could result is paralyzing situations in some cases. I wonder if there might not be a case where at least « basic » (or even « organized ») might be allowed to exist and be recognized even though there is some degree of overlap, to allow a new group to in fact grow... and possibly be able to replace a dead weight.

The other thing is that... if in a geography... the affiliate is a mere « organized » affiliate, it may not be well equipped yet to permit « service » over its full geography. Its governance may not be well established and not be so great. The no-overlap situation would prevent the existence of a « basic » or even another « organized » and would really impact the development of the community in the said-region.

I am also wondering what the chances are of a small « basic » group to grow and improve their governance and increase their track record and demonstrate their worth when... they have basically zero access to funding. I see this restriction as potentially hindering birth of new groups in geographies where there are none (for example... a group in RCA ?)

I will note that the size of the « geography » has been largely left aside (national or regional is vague). Who would decide what a « region » is ? According to which criterias ? If we disagree with the AffCom bold decision over what a « region" is, what would be the opportunities to challenge this ?

I am curious of what would happen if a no-overlap criteria is approved. Would it only impact the new recognitions or would there be an explicit effort to « undo » all the overlap that currently exist (and in some cases, there are rather numerous...). Within your proposition, based on « no overlap factors », my understanding is that several Gender Equity based groups would have to merge. I doubt they would. It mostly raises questions about what would happen to big collaborations. For example, WikiGap from Sweden would not be allowed to happen again. SheSaid would also have to stop. This would essentially destroy the current tight network of collaboration that exist between structures. What would Art&Feminism become ? Would they disappear because they overlap with dozen of entities ? The gender gap UG work a LOT together. That would be such a loss.

Also, this limitation of geography action would have as a result to restrict the expansion of successful programs to other geographies. Borders would be created, that can only be broken by the group becoming a thematic one, something it may not wish or be capable of doing.

In my perspective, hubs can be formal or informal structures, but they need to have members (being other entities, affiliates or not).

When living the same geography or in the same theme... language need to be an argument for being a separate entity. Unless you want Anglophone to run the show.

Overall, I remember well that I reported several issues in the affiliate model when we were questioned. Your propositions basically do not solve any of the issue I reported and create more. This is disappointing. Anthere (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything that Anthere has said above, and especially want to emphasize my concern about “I am also wondering what the chances are of a small « basic » group to grow and improve their governance and increase their track record and demonstrate their worth when... they have basically zero access to funding.”. A model like this doesn't fit to a so-called “growth-oriented ecosystems like Wikimedia” (although this definition can also be disputed). Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Wikimedistas de Uruguay

First, thanks for this proposal. It's a good initial starter for the conversation. Some observations:

• Maturity needs to be evaluated against a framework of assesment, not current legal relationship with WMF. The current proposal attaches maturity to the legal relationship with the Foundation, which doesn't solve some of the problems we still have in the affiliate ecosystem. There have been plenty of chapters that are not mature enough to govern large amounts of money in ways that advance the movement, and in the opposite direction, there are many user groups that have legal entities backing them, and are able to operate high impact programs, that either for historical reasons or legal reasons might or might not be able to become a chapter. The maturity should be separated from the legal relationship, because they are, as a matter of fact, two different things. In some contexts, becoming a Wikimedia chapter as the brand ambassador might directly put people at risk. Lastly, this proposal disproportionately impacts Wikimedia affiliates in the Global South, creating harder conditions for them to access funding based on a legal definition.
• Suggestions for assesing maturity. Currently, the Affiliate Health Criteria has been the tool used to try to do some of this assessment, but it doesn't capture the complexity or sophistication of implementing activities in any given context or country; it just offers yes/no questions. The Affiliate Ecosystem Paper offers three good avenues for assessing maturity: collaboration, partnerships and impact. This framework needs to be co-created between affiliates, program officers, regional grant committees and AffCom. Ideally, it would be a ponderated criteria that takes into account both quantitative and qualitative assessments.

Last but not least, there are currently several user groups that receive multi-year funding. Changing the funding conditions should then be accompanied by a process that allows for a proper, careful transition, if these conditions are expected to change in the near future. Scann (WDU) (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Wikimedians of Romania and Moldova

We are very happy to see new contributions to the affiliation reform and we deeply appreciate the AffCom’s detailed and thoughtful proposals. We value the clarity of the model, the structured presentation of challenges, and the commitment to strengthening the ecosystem. We agree with the proposed distinctions and affiliate categories, and we believe that the simplified model has the potential to make the movement more transparent and easier to navigate.

Building on this, we would like to share some reflections on the funding model, based on our experience. We feel that linking the maturity of a community to whether it is formally registered as a legal entity, and further, making annual grants dependent on that status, may be too restrictive. In many contexts, affiliates choose not to register for reasons that have little to do with capability or capacity, and more with political conditions, legal risks, or the financial burden of maintaining a stable and compliant legal entity. Conditioning core funding on legal registration could unintentionally disadvantage communities in more challenging environments, despite their valuable work and commitment in the movement.

The proposed development targets appear to echo the broader “grow or die” perspective seen in other discussions over the last months. In a world with rapid technological change, political instability, and uneven local conditions, this approach may put pressure on smaller affiliates and shift their focus away from serving their communities toward meeting externally defined performance milestones. Over time, this could raise the barriers for entering the affiliation model while also increasing the risk of losing affiliates due to normal fluctuations in volunteer capacity.

We believe that the movement also needs mechanisms to support affiliates and communities that are not growing rapidly, or that are intentionally maintaining a stable but smaller footprint, aligned with their context and needs. Recognition, support, and funding should not be limited only to organizations that follow a linear growing path. Supporting diverse trajectories is also essential to a resilient global movement.

Best, Strainu (talk) on behalf of the usergroup 20:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Superzerocool

Hi there, thanks for sharing this draft.

About growth

Just based on my experience in the last funding round and some conversations with LAC affiliates, the maturity level is closely related to the activities and how the groups grow. In the current round (1/2026 FY), not legally established affiliates requested 46k USD to pay a fiscal sponsor to hold the funds, perform accounting, and pay taxes or fees to keep the affiliates' funds. I know the amount is too little compared with the total grant amount granted to the region (I remember over 2,5 M USD), but in the meantime, a little group of volunteers who are applying for Rapid Grants can't get money because a very well-established group must to pay someone else to keep money (I can't figure out how are the staffed people have a contract... this is other history). I know I'm talking about things related to resources, but recognition is based on the capacity of an organized group to do wiki-things. On the other hand, we have affiliates with staff members but without local governance or legal requirements in their country (whereas applying this, some groups are thematic, so it's difficult to follow any local rules), because they don't want/don't need to be a legal entity in their country, and they are applying for amount over 50 k USD. In the scarcity, we need to understand if there are any ideas, dreams, or goals to be an affiliate or not to support them with the resources, we need to help to have a smooth transition to become a recognized entity. So, it's not easy to guess my position about the topic: we can accept everyone, but we need to be formal who want to be formal in the local authorities (when applicable).

About hubs

About hubs, it seems a good idea, but it needs more polish, not about how they work, the question could be why we need a hub?. The hub is a central area to bring affiliates, resources, and people to create, improve, and do advocacy in the affiliates' geographic situation or thematic orientation. That sounds fine, but the hubs are growing as a new bureaucreat layer of wiki-things in our movement, so the main question is, do we really need hubs?. I see a lot of reports about GRDC meetings in some places, such as MENA, CEE, Hispanic (+ Portuguese) community, but we are always talking with affiliates, between affiliates, so what is the big deal with hubs? (Please, don't read me as "I don't like the hubs", it's just a concern about the need; hubs are a great way to connect others. I experienced that in Iberocoop, so I really trust in the cooperation between affiliates).

Kindly, Superzerocool (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments related to Capacity Development proposal

This is the space for feedback to Capacity Development draft proposal of the Affiliations Committee from November 2025. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Anthere

This makes sense. Side note: a « guiding question » is duplicated: How to contextualize the best practices to particular environments?

Thank you for catching the copy-paste mistake! Fixed. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from Wikimedistas de Uruguay

This doesn't look like it should be one of AffCom's responsibilities. There are plenty of spaces already in the movement that could offer exactly this type of support (the Executive Directors group, Let's Connect, etc.). It's also unclear the scope being proposed (is it overall impact or board governance?). Improving governance and institutional capacity could be attached to the regional Program Officers and regional committees by allowing them and affiliates to have on-call access to consultancies as needed (i.e., on governance issues, conflict resolution, funds management, etc.), considering that governance and institutional capacity change as organizations change. Scann (WDU) (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments related to Conflict Management proposal

This is the space for feedback to Conflict Management draft proposal of the Affiliations Committee from November 2025. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you look at the resources I've compiled on approaches to conflict resolution here: https://www.zotero.org/groups/5740900/open_dispute_resolution_policy_design_group/library Also, I strongly support the Affiliations Committee creating a fund where Affiliations can request professional mediation support from paid and professionally trained mediators. I believe U4C is flawed in that it is volunteer-driven, when volunteers really shouldn't be asked to do the work of career professional mediators. In addition U4C is going to have difficulty recruiting women and folks in low- and middle-income nations to be mediators if these positions are unpaid. Hexatekin (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I would say, as far as having those responsible for mediation professionally trained, looking to existing training resources and networks, such as https://www.timetospringup.org/resources + organizations I've kept track of in the Zotero library linked above. Hexatekin (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm thinking that conflict management may not be a judge of who is right. When we are thinking about organisations, the relationships must be set under standard ways to create and maintain a dialogue between the parties before escalating any conflict. The AffCom may guide this to happen, especially if the affiliate shares topics or areas of impact, because it is very easy to take actions or adopt attitudes to become uncomfortable to others. How?, An affiliate mapping about geography / thematic and how the governance may be a good starting point, to forseen any overlap of territory-topics, and then create a resource library to establish the expected way to be a leader or decision-maker for a Wikimedia organisation, because I see a lot of good volunteers have great ideas, but they think about be an affiliate is the same as create a Wikiproject group in Wikipedia and reaching consensus is "how creates more noise" instead of talking about the concerns and try to reach consensus. Conflict mediation is not an easy task, but creating a framework to prevent escalated situations and training (internal or external) for affiliates could be a good starting point for prevention. Disagreeing with others will happen even in our homes, so the key part is not doing the "ostrich solution". Superzerocool (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC) (ps: yeah, I read the proposal, but I want to reinforce this point)

Feedback from Wikiesfera

An affiliate should be defined as a mission-aligned, formally recognized entity that sustains and grows the Wikimedia movement within a specific community or around a specific focus. The key distinction should be primary purpose and community served:

• Geographic Focus: Serving a territory-based community.
• Thematic Focus: Serving a topic, project, or identity-based community.
• Language/Project Focus: A vital type of thematic focus centered on a language or project community.

As Wikimedistas de Uruguay has said, this definition must be decoupled from a rigid legal hierarchy. The movement's maturity metric should be organizational and programmatic complexity, not the legal relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation. We have highly complex, professionally run User Groups that outperform some Chapters, and we have Chapters that operate as informal volunteer clubs. The label should reflect operational reality, not an aspirational legal status. It is exhausting to have to repeat this every time this topic is artificially reopened, and honestly signals very little knowledge and comprehension of affiliate reality.

The conversation on hubs has become a theoretical distraction. Hubs, as currently conceived in movement strategy, are not emerging organically in any widespread or sustainable way since the Foundation decided to pick and choose which recommendations it would follow and which ones it would not. There is little clear, ground-up demand to create new, complex intermediary structures. Therefore, we should not spend excessive time designing a top-down "hub" architecture. Instead, we should focus on strengthening what already works. Where strong regional or thematic collaboration already exists (e.g., Iberocoop, WikiFranca, etc), the movement should provide light-touch support (e.g., funding for coordination meetings, shared tools). These are networks, not new legal "hubs." The Movements’ true "hubs" already exist: they are our most complex and capable affiliates—both geographic and thematic. A large, well-resourced Chapter or Thematic Organization is already functioning as a hub by hosting events, sharing expertise, and managing funds for smaller groups (see Wikimedia Argentina, for example). Our strategy should be to identify, fund, and empower these naturally leading organizations to provide services to their regions or thematic areas, rather than forcing the invention of a new, abstract layer. Hubs should not be a prescriptive, mandatory category. If organic energy coalesces into a formal service entity, it can be recognized. But the primary investment should be in direct affiliate capacity and in fostering peer networks, not in building a new, untested institutional layer from scratch.

The current three-tier system (Chapter, Thematic Organization, User Group) creates artificial ceilings and floors. We need flatter, purpose-driven categories:

• Wikimedia Network (Geographic): A mature, geographically-focused entity.
• Wikimedia Network (Thematic): A mature, topic or identity-focused entity. Thematic groups that achieve operational maturity should not be forced into a separate, often perceived as "lesser," category. "Thematic Organization" should be retired; complexity, not geography, should grant parity.
• Wikimedia Community Group: The recognized starting point for all new initiatives (geographic or thematic).

Organizational growth path: The path should be linear and capacity-based. A "Community Group" grows its programs, governance, and sustainability. Upon meeting clear, objective benchmarks for impact and stability, it becomes a "Network." This focuses support on development, not legal upgrades. Volunteer exploitation should at no point be a reasonable model for affiliate growth, and ought to be called out immediately. We need to kill this scarcity mentality that prevents sustainable growth.

On multiple affiliates per country/thematic area: This must be recognized as a strategic feature, not a bug to be mitigated. A single affiliate per country creates a dangerous single point of failure—bottlenecks for community growth, potential for gatekeeping, and vulnerability if that single entity becomes inactive or dysfunctional. It attracts more diverse contributors, fosters healthy specialization (e.g., gender, education, GLAM), and builds a more resilient Movement. As Anthere says, the current proposal endangers the existence of gender groups and signals very little on-the-ground knowledge of the current affiliate ecosystem.

A true affiliate strategy would therefore actively encourage this diversity where community energy exists, focusing not on preventing overlap but on developing underrepresented topics and geographies. Instead of asking "how do we stop another group forming here?", we should ask "what community or topic is currently unserved, and how can we support a group to form there?"

The Affiliations Committee, as a part-time volunteer body, is fundamentally unequipped to handle the complex, ongoing work of conflict resolution, strategic affiliate development, or enforcing collaboration agreements. These are not tasks that can be sustainably or effectively performed as a volunteer role. They require professional, dedicated staff with expertise in organizational development, mediation, and strategic planning, who have the time, mandate, and training to proactively support healthy ecosystems and intervene in disputes.

Therefore, the future "affiliate strategy" function (including overlap mediation, capacity building, and conflict resolution) must be resourced as a professional function within the Movement, either at the Wikimedia Foundation or within another professional structure. AffCom's role should be limited to initial recognition and compliance, while the complex, relational, and strategic work is handed to a properly resourced entity. Without this, even the best criteria will fail in execution, leaving volunteers to manage situations that require full-time, professional attention.

On behalf of Wikiesfera, PatriHorrillo (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)