Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of
requests come in for
public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
review process in place, especially where there is strong community
interest in an issue.
To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved
in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
Affiliations
Guideline<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Fo…
on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to
clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
political issues. This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering
requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.
This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power
in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?
MZMcBride