The way AffCom deals with certain situations is clearly not transparent
enough for the Wikimedia environment.
We have a situation in Brazil that remains unsolved and Affcom wouldn’t
even follow their own ways of dealing with it.
Here is a clearer example:
AffCom has created a page on Meta to discuss the issues, but it has been
ignored by them. And it’s like they have no need to answer. Regardless of
the many moments my group tried to solve the issues, even when being
ignored about important complaints, we were punished with de-recognition
with no warning. *No warning.*
Is it really the proper way a group should be de-recognized? Despite being
one of the most active groups in the World, we were trying to solve the
problems. However, AffCom dealt with it in the easiest way, as if both
involved groups had done the same and should be punished the same way,
which is not correct.
It is a matter of volunteer time? Being a volunteer body is not a reason
for being absent. If the body is unable to solve an issue, it should
declare itself unable and community can think of better ways of doing it. I
see that the only actions on AffCom are cutting relations and transfering
responsibilities to others when it comes to conflict resolution. Some
should solve the problems, otherwise they will be punished.
I have been asking a lot elsewhere. What is the best way to discuss this
with community. Me and others trie to discuss with AffCom itself, but were
ignored. So, I wonder if there are others interested in discussing it,
because AffCom is not or don’t have the time, which is not that bad, but
then we should be addressed to anyone that would act properly. Should we
create a conflict resolution body to help AffCom? That may be the a good
start in my opinion, but let’s not keep it the way it is, for the best of
our community.
Teles
Em qui, 20 de set de 2018 às 08:55, Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> escreveu:
Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.
I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on
communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned, and
we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does more
harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process.
I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition" before a
vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter -
especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in
charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly
counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders
away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and
actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should
only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive and
the situation has been deteriorating significantly.
In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and backstage
acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has any
legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own
situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are
circulating around wildly.
I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the
AffCom, who are a group of volunteers as many of us are, to know the
answers to all of them, and to act perfectly. That's why a more public and
broader discussion among the Movement is needed about this.
Paulo
Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia quinta,
20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56:
I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing
such warnings could
very
well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make
the warning moot.
This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia
Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general
mailing list, which is for general information and includes our partners
and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.
In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to
cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve
differences.*"
The so called "conflict" was nothing
but a single individual sending
legal
and personal threats against members of the
chapter. this is the
information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh AffCom
-
it still is the same information we have today,
it has not changed. So
the
AffCom told those on the receiving end to
"cease from taking part in this
conflict and to work to resolve differences".
Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with
this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more
than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three
members of the elected board took place before this message. So much for
"hearing all parts".
And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your differences
and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of
WMPT*"
- Apparently we in the chapter should refrain
from receiving menaces and
threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the
chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't
know.
"*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on
the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was
kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is
now
harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became
president. What is not fair is
that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the
necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at
least.
We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing
report was about to be sent
-
and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally
told them that in Berlin -
when this message was sent.
It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this
matter, reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now
apparently lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all
communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the
AffCom discussion list (affcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<affcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org>) rather than various personal
communications
channels.*"
And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under the
Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as
representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.*"
Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered Association
of
full right in Portugal, with an elected board
validated according to the
law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the
course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records,
registration updates, etc.)
I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia
Portugal, without any previous warning or contact that would hint about
such a thing, generating surprise, questions and apprehension among the
people in that list.
I don't believe this is OK. I don't believe the AffCom was correct in
doing this this way.
Paulo
(This is only my personal opinion, I'm not writing in the name of WMPT,
but merely as a member of the chapter who has passed through all that)
effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta,
19/09/2018 à(s) 22:28:
> As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme
> transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the
culture
> in the country, being overly public in the
'warning phase' can have the
> result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held
> back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the
> organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill
off
> the affiliate, and make the warning moot.
Another side effect of going
> public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is
> already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse
> when you involve the whole world.
>
> Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but
> rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to
> align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some
> silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization
can
> adjust and repair - I'm all for it that
they use silent backchannels.
> Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such
> admission is usually easier achieved in private.
>
> A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to
find
> a
> healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that
> balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did
or
> > didn't do blah and it added up to
serious problems; we've been heading
> > in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar -
> > often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and
> > handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
> >
> > On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
> > > I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my
main
> > > feeling is that we should not hide
news that would be in the public
> > > interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or
an
> > > investigation into an
affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because
> it is
> > > bad news or embarrassing news.
> > >
> > > There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as
> > > preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying
> information
> > > that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity
if
> > > information is published, such as
the suspension of an affiliate,
> isn't
> > > sufficient justification for keeping information private.
> > >
> > > Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
> > private.
> > > One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be
> public
> > is
> > > that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in
this
> > > case, Affcom). Transparency is a
useful deterrent against
favoritism,
> > > negligence, and other problems in
public service organizations in
> > general.
> > > I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of
> > > affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom
to
> set
> > > an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or
> bad.
> > >
> > > 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>
_______________________________________________
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