I really hope that the reason for de-recognition of any affiliate is not
that “the other side expressed a contrary position”.
We have seen it in Brazil too, as others already started to link the dots.
There where two groups in conflict. Instead of solving the problem, or even
declaring itself unable to solve (which they are and would be
understandable), AffCom de-recognized both of them with no warning. And we
still keep asking why with no answer: [1]
I don’t know why we keep asking (but I don’t plan to stop until I have an
answer). Probably for being long-term volunteers and believing on the
Wikimedia Movement, but after undergoing so many unfair and poor
judgements, I don’t have the answer. And I am still willing to work on the
improvements and not only pointing fingers. Reading the message from AffCom
saying that “The Brazilian community is much broader that the contributors
involved in these two former User Groups” and all the rest, it sounded like
our work was disposable on their eyes, a perfect insult. [2] In my opinion,
this lack of professionalism is a clear sign that the committee was not
able to deal with the case and decided about it in the easiest way for
them, with a terrible outcome for Brazil. But it’s okay... we have other
people to do the job, don’t we?
I can’t understand why did AffCom come up with a roadmap if they were not
willing to respect the terms of it. If WMPT fulfilled the requirements on
roadmap what we all expected is that AffCom would fulfill their part of the
agreement. Just like the discussion I mentioned above on which AffCom
creates a place to discuss and then disappears.
WMPT was inactive for years. I never understood why AffCom allowed that,
but never bothered to ask. We should all be grateful for the users that are
trying to recompose the chapter and clearly willing to do it under the
committee advice, but working with the rules of AffCom itself is not
enough. Sounds like an impossible mission is defined and when it is not
fulfilled, it is used as a reason for de-recognition.
The lack of transparency, the poor judgement, irresponsible decisions, the
apparent inactivity of their members should have an end. As I said, I am
still willing to help like I bet others will, but keeping silent about your
own problems won’t make AffCom better. Sorry for any possible emotional
argument... it’s hard to hide it after a year of expectations and unsolved
conflict.
Teles
[1]-
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Ste…
[2]-
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps#Co…
Em qui, 11 de out de 2018 às 21:17, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> escreveu:
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this
thread and the fact that
AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. It
doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is a
single individual and the other is a community of people led by those for
whom they have repeatedly expressed support.
If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could
legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much work
by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and
apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least
progress in the right direction.
In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the results of
its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As I believe we mentioned the last time this
particular topic came up, we
are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by
debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position:
they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia
Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law. At
the
same time, the other side in this conflict has
expressed a contrary
position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those
provisions.
The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real
headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on
interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the applicable
legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual Portuguese
legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until that
happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to closure,
one
way or the other.
Regards,
Kirill
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
Wikimedia Commons.
Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.
+55 (71) 99707 6409