It does not surprises me in the least the AffCom had forced other
affiliates to "negotiate" with reported harassers.
On the message sent to the associates of WMPT in 18 May, the AffCom
demanded "*all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this
conflict and to work to resolve differences*" with the reported individual
that was threatening, stalking and harassing them. They also offered "*to
discuss a potential mediation plan*" between the chapter and the harasser,
as if such a situation needed any "mediation" at all. Furthermore, they
threatened with de-recognition, in case the harasser was not appeased: "*In
the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward,
this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT*".
it's always worth recalling that this was a situation of an entire chapter
vs. a rogue individual, a non-Wikimedian, who was harassing, stalking and
threatening a number of its members.
Paulo
Chico Venancio <chicocvenancio(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta,
26/09/2018 à(s) 00:13:
While I cannot speak to the legality of these actions,
Affcom's demand that
we (Brazilian affiliates) meet with reported harassers was very troubling
to me. The fact that despite our agreement with that baffling condition no
actual mediation took place, Affcom refused to engage with communications,
and then issued false statements about this[1] is even more concerning.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps
Chico Venancio
2018-09-25 19:42 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta(a)gmail.com>om>:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15
April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese
law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly,
was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to
fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they
doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking
decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General
Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely
the
former head of the table of the General Assembly
elected in 2015. That
too
is against the law. Under the Portuguese law,
when there is a legally
elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head
of
the table of the General Assembly, in the name of
the board) that
conveys a
General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese
Civil Code). A General
Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some
external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent
General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would
have
been illegal under the country law, being
conveyed by a party that had
not
any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April
General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer
knowledgeable
of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It
was with that General
Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere
imposition
of the AffCom, with almost no practical value)
that WMPT submitted its
tax
form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year,
updated the names of the legal
representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade
Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the
association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s)
22:01:
> I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or
neglect
their
responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing
trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
> is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am
> concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that
should
> be addressed.
>
> As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of
these
actions
in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
> AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give
me
cause for
concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
made
> an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal
> research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making
> requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that
AffCom
has
access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the
end
> of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern
> potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I
think
> that this is the lesser problem. I think
that Affcom's actions, good
and
bad,
should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in
sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the
situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
> a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning
letter
was
erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an
affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
> can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and
> continuous self-improvement.
>
> One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they
are
primarily
composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level
of quality and
dedication
> from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general
is
an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to
hear others' thoughts
about
> how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are
generously
volunteering their limited time.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>
_______________________________________________
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>