Hi Maggie,

The link to the Foundation policy is helpful. The most relevant section appears to be "Collaborative Advocacy". If that is right then what happens is "Advocacy Advisory Group (consultation), RfC (consultation if time permits), and General notice".

Though a link to an email thread of this group has now been given as a remark on the blog post, a general notice and RFC has been skipped, despite this document being available and under discussion for more than six months (so "time permits" applies). I believe the WMF was not successful in complying with its own policy in this case.

Is my reading correct?

Fae

On 15 May 2014 11:48, Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:

Hello, Fae.

If you have not seen it, there is brief discussion, including a definition of the group, at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Poli...

Regards,

Maggie

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi,

I have joined this email list as it appears to be used as evidence of Wikimedia community consultation.[1] I certainly was unaware that this list was being used for this purpose, and I am concerned that wider consultation processes may not be attempted.

The only scope for this list I can find is that at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors which says nothing about representation. Could someone point me to better definition?

Links

1. Refer to the WMF blog post response by Roshni Patel at

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/09/opposing-mass-surveillance-on-the-internet/

Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

---

Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

-- Maggie Dennis Senior Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

---

Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

On 15 May 2014 14:45, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote: ...

The purpose of the guideline is to provide opportunity for community members to guide and provide feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's advocacy positions. It is our internal guideline, not a binding policy or contract (see the FAQ for the guideline). If you have an issue with the Necessary and Proportionate principles or the WMF taking a stance against mass surveillance, you are welcome to raise it here or on Meta.

Hi Stephen,

I have already responded for a second time on the blog post in question. That is awaiting moderation right now, so I am cautious about discussing this in two places. However here is my point of view from what I have discovered today:

As I understand it the WMF promises to do 3 things before publishing a blog post like this: 1. "Advocacy Advisory Group (consultation)" - done 2. "RfC (consultation if time permits)" - not done 3. "General notice" - not done

Considering this is an important document in terms of global internet politics and the role of the WMF in representing our community (this is how the general public will see this action), I am puzzled as to why any WMF manager would want to be seen to choosing to skip #2 and #3.

The fact is that the policy in question has been worded so that that sexual orientation and LGBT minorities are not explicitly covered. I am sure that one can debate what the scope of "others" might be in the text, however as a member of that minority group, I would have absolutely no confidence that my right to privacy for my gay life would have any protection were I, say, using Grindr in Turkey to meet friends, even if the Telecoms companies in that country had agreed to the Principles. Indeed just by using Grindr I might be endangering any local LGBT people I talked to, who might later be prosecuted or persecuted for their 'immoral activities' using data collected by monitoring the application.

Had the WMF consulted more widely, I would have been able to put forward examples and the community could discuss if they were something to be concerned enough about, for the WMF to raise its own questions or clarifications before fully supporting the principles. By rushing ahead without consultation when there was plenty of time to do so, my concerns have been unnecessarily ignored as I had no voice in this process.

Fae

On 15 May 2014 15:55, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote: ...

The Principles do not explicitly mention sexual orientation. They also do not mention atheism or spiritualities, but only religion. In fact, there is a wide range of personal statuses - ability, ethnicity or 'race', genetic and health characteristics - which are not mentioned in the document and which various advocates really did agitate for inclusion. But the list is quite long as is, and represents a compromise between usefulness and inclusivity. Whingeing that your personal focus is not mentioned specifically doesn't really help, especially when you do not take into consideration the effort which was already invested nor display evidence of having actually considered the issues involved in reaching such a consensus.

Thanks for your comment. I am not intending to undo the work of others, in fact I have no power of any kind here, as I had no voice in advance of this decision being made. Nothing can be undone here. I am writing to ensure that the WMF pay positive attention to promises of consultation in existing policy, and that other Wikimedia groups at least take a moment to consider, and hopefully discuss, this issue before joining the bandwagon of support for the Principles.

"Sexual orientation" is mentioned in the preamble, it is just not part of the actual Principles. Considering the many months of preparation of the document, it can be no accident that the choice was to not define the use of "others" by the preamble.

I do not agree that a concern for respect for the privacy of LGBT minorities is "whingeing", I am taken aback as this language appears to deride my point of view and the importance of a LGBT minority human right to a private life in general.

Fae

On 15/05/2014, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:

Oh, no, that was a purely personal comment about your actions of joining a list and assuming bad faith on the part of all involved. It does not deride your point of view, only you personally.

Amgine

Thanks for the clarification. It helps me understand your point of view. I had hoped that new comers to a list of this type would be welcomed in good faith, along with their questions.

I do not believe that I have said anything about the members of this list, my apologies if my original question about the scope of this list might have appeared that way. Perhaps others who are less interested in making personal comments would like to address the issues about the WMF blog post that I have attempted to raise in good faith?

Thanks, Fae