While I have limited knowledge of the facts in this situation, I am
concerned about the possibility that AffCom is insufficiently investigating
facts before making judgments.
Interventions from Affcom which are undertaken with an insufficient
knowledge of the facts risk doing more harm than good.
I encourage AffCom and WMF to consider whether improving AffCom's capacity
to independently investigate the facts of affiliates' situations should be
increased, for example by authorizing AffCom to contract with legal counsel
who are licensed to practice in countries where AffCom has concerns and who
can independently investigate the facts of affiliates' situations on
AffCom's behalf.
Another difficulty with this situation is AffCom's lack of transparency. If
AffCom was more transparent about its investigations and actions then
outsiders would be able to better understand AffCom's work and evaluate
AffCom's actions. Because AffCom withholds so much information, it is
difficult to say whether AffCom is right or wrong with regards to Wikimedia
Portugal. What I can say is that the lack of transparency, in my opinion,
is a problem, is a poor governance practice, and is difficult to reconcile
with the open source nature of Wikimedia.
I don't want to underestimate the challenge of evaluating compliance of
Wikimedia affiliates around the world. This a big job, and if AffCom
members volunteer their time in good faith and valuable relevant skills
then I'm grateful for that. But I have some concerns about AffCom regarding
transparency, investigative capacity, investigative skills, and
adjudicative process.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )