Talk:Training the Trainers/Accreditation

So far we have run two Training the Trainers courses and several volunteers have successfully completed the assessment.

Martin set out our expectations for accreditation earlier this year:

• "Note that this is about training, not presenting. There is no plan for WMUK to assess, accredit or regulate presentations or lectures on any aspect of Wikimedia. Similarly, there is no intention to restrict training to an elite clique. On the contrary, I think a clear process for becoming a WMUK approved trainer would encourage more volunteers to volunteer at training events and get themselves accredited. When we are putting together a high-profile event with a partner organisation, we will prefer to use accredited trainers in preference to others. It'll operate as a white-list rather than a black-list." - Martin Poulter, 9 April 2012.

I hope everybody will endorse this as a sensible, inclusive scheme to establish and make use of accreditation.

There has been a delay in issuing accreditations from the June event, as sometimes happens with new schemes. Therefore I would like to see some input on ways to make that process much more responsive, and I'll set out some possibilities below:

Option 1

The accreditations are approved by the Lead Trainers (at present Martin, Fae, Doug) as we are doing now.

Option 2

The accreditations are approved by the Trustee with responsibility for the area (at present Doug).

Option 3

The accreditations are approved by the Education Committee (at present 7 members).

Option 4

The accreditations are approved by the Board (at present 6 members).

Option 5

The accreditations are approved by a designated member of staff.

The most responsive routes are for me to do it as in Option 2, or a single member of staff as in Option 5. I'm attracted to the openness of Option 3, but worried that getting a rapid decision from 7 people may introduce delays.

Comments are very welcome on this and any other related issues. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I think there's a need to keep this simple. I'm perfectly happy with option 1, although 2 is equally good. Option 3 is open but would lack a certain responsiveness. I also don't see a scenario where there would need to be a vote on an accreditation (although I may be wrong). I think getting the board to collectively approve would be cumbersome and add to already significant commitments of the trustees so I would be against that option. Option 5, I'd be happy to be that member of staff given my involvement in the committee. I think the important point is any feedback we get from the training sessions. How do we currently assess performance of those people being trained? Do Midas put together a "class report" (for want of a better phrase)? If we have assurances that the performance of those being trained was sufficiently good for them to be accredited, I think options 2 and 5 would be the best as it's a simple administrative matter. If not, then Option 1 would be best. Hope this is useful! --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)